On Sep 20, 9:23 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am tempted to ignore the existing parser entirely. It's not such > a crazy idea! All we need is a parser that allows us to create type > tables! Writing unit tests for such a parser would be straightforward. There is an essential point of view that is implicit here: the parser is simply a tool for getting unit tests to pass! If we concentrate on unit tests that demonstrate that swig's type tables are created correctly, we have a framework for doing intensive testing of the (new or old) *parser*. In this framework, we can ask afresh the question, "what is the simplest parser that could possibly work?" Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
