On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:08:37PM +0000, David Grove wrote: > Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a > parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multiple input "languages". Yes I know > that GCC does F77/ASM/C/C++ but I'm not sure those completely relate. That does relate, and isn't documented. > Simon (?) brought up the problem that we might end up with a monolithic > beastie I don't recall saying anything about it being a problem. :) > Reading what you say, "parser/lexer/tokenizer" (multiple things) "part" > (one thing). That's got to be a stumbling block of some kind. Why? -- As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie
- Re: Now, to try again... Nicholas Clark
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... Chaim Frenkel
- A parser that can handle partial programs (was Re: N... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: A parser that can handle partial programs (w... Dan Sugalski
- A parser that can handle partial programs (was R... Nick Ing-Simmons
- input to the parser (was Re: Now, to try again...) Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: input to the parser (was Re: Now, to try aga... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Simon Cozens
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Andy Dougherty
- Re: Now, to try again... Simon Cozens
- Re: Now, to try again... Sam Tregar
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Sam Tregar
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... Sam Tregar
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Sam Tregar