2009/8/18 Henri Verbeet <hverb...@gmail.com>: > 2009/8/18 Matteo Bruni <matteo.myst...@gmail.com>: >> constructs, single instructions, ...) but it seems to be quite a work >> and in any case the resulting patch needs to have a working lexer, >> parser, bytecode writer and the glue among them, so it can't be made >> smaller than so much, I believe. > > I don't think that's really a requirement. It's probably fine to e.g. > just add a minimal lexer first, then add a minimal parser, etc. >
Lexer and parser have to go together, as the parser defines the tokens used by the lexer. In any case, a patch adding just the lexer is not "useful" (as in Juan's definition) because it can't be used without the other components. I believe in this case the choice is between having a useful bigger patch or smaller patches but not useful by themselves. Maybe I'll have a better view of the situation after some tinkering with the patches. Which probably will be tomorrow as now I my development system is half-broken and I have to fix it...