On 23/10/02 01:05 +0200, nadim wrote:
> On Saturday 12 October 2002 01:07, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> > At least on my machine, the parsing isn't the real culprit. I'm eager to
> > see Nadim's results. ;)
>
> Hi all, I finally got tired of this parsing non sense. Why should I parse
> hundreds of KB of code to find the one function I know will be there since
> I put it there in the first place.
>
> ParseRecDescent and ParseRegExp are fine as long as the code is unknown or
> not too difficult to parse (ParseRegExp fails on flex generated code (you
> can't blame it for that ;-))
>
> With ParseManual you must declare the function you want to be exposed, in
> my case (works with whatever comment type you have);
> %{
> // ParseManual: int yylex(void)
> %}
Cool.
I have been thinking of something a little more flexible:
// InlineParse: ON
int yylex(void) {
// InlineParse: OFF
...
I think having a standard way of telling Inline what to parse, and what not
to is a fine idea. I'd be glad to start discussing this in the next release.
In the mean time, I think your hack is a great way to do it.
Cheers, Brian
