[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is it always possible to make a non-reentrant parser reentrant?
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Is it always possible to make a non-reentrant parser reentrant? |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:38:43 +0100 |
hi!
> Le 8 févr. 2019 à 12:39, Peng Yu <address@hidden> a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 11:49 PM Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit confused here: did you really mean "another parser", or did
>> you mean "another scanner"? If you do mean "another parser", I'm not
>> sure how you would coordinate the several layers.
>
>
> Probably it should be another scanner. I only has a vague idea and I don’t
> know what will the implementation details.
I have not studied carefully how the heretics are parsed, so I might
have said naive things.
> I’d like to know what is the best way to structure the parsing code. Given
> a lot of code of bash started 30 years ago, I’d expect at least some part
> of the code is not the best according to today’s standard. I’d like to
> know anything that can improve it.
For a start, I don't understand why so much of the code is written
in K&R. I find this amazing. Besides, it uses a parser generator
that has dropped K&R for ages. So honestly, if you are cleaning
up bash, I would first move its C to 1990.
Then in the grammar, I would also use the literal string aliases:
IMHO the grammar file is much easier to read, and the error messages
are expected to be nicer too.
Re: Is it always possible to make a non-reentrant parser reentrant?, Simon Richter, 2019/02/08