On Monday 14 April 2008, Lin wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:18 pm, Charles E Campbell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > The primary disadvantage is that effectively writing a new yacc/bison is
> > not a small task. I have a real thick book about writing a yacc-like
> > parser somewhere; if anyone's interested, I could look up its ISBN.
>
> The biggest advantage for writing a brand new LALR parser I think is
> that we can make it incremental. I know something about parsing LALR
> grammars. They would produce some intermediate table from the grammar
> definition (called status table?) to guide the parser, so that it
> operates like a finite automata with a stack equipped. If we have that
> table we can just store the stack and the parser's state to avoid
> looking back to previous codes.
> Then we also need a scanner recognizing different types of words. For
> this we can seek help from tools like Lex.
>
> Is C++ an LALR language? Not sure...
>
> Regards,
> Lin
IMHO not a good idea. You will waste most of the time writing/debugging the
parser instead of the Vim part (plus all the time you need to solve problems
related to the parser and the grammar). Don't reinvent the wheel when there's
one that might suit your need sufficiently well.
Writing a parser seems not that hard at first, but how many have you written
so far ? It really is not an easy task and that's why yacc/bison is still so
popular despite it having some limitations.
Plus writing a grammar for C sounds as joyful as driving a glowing steel rod
through your private parts, considering all its ambiguities.
Marc
--
Marc Haisenko
Comdasys AG
Rüdesheimer Str. 7
80686 München
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
