[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Interactive parsing with Bison

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Interactive parsing with Bison
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:19:25 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

> I can't believe Paul Eggert can't learn enough C++ to work on Bison.

I'm sure I could learn it better, if I had the time and the need.

> Exactly, that's why I don't propose ML either, nor C# or Java.
> But then again, let's agree that moving to C++ is a totally
> different matter.

I don't see why moving to Java would be that much more work than
moving to C++.  The basic code and algorithms would be almost the same
code.  You'd have to change the program structure and headers of
course, and fiddle with the syntax a bit, but you'd need to do that
for C++ anyway, if you wanted to actually _use_ C++.

> one of the first things we would win with C++ is the bitset support.
> We would have lost so much time maintaining it in C.

I'm not sure I agree.  I've done the brunt of that maintenance work
since the code was contributed, and it hasn't been a real problem.

(But anyway, if its bitsets you want, Java's got 'em.  :-)

> M4 is indeed, a problem.  But I'm taking about the front-end of
> Bison, and the backend is irrelevant here.

But the project in question is a backend project.

Now I'm confused about why we're discussing this issue of language
choice.  If you want to generate code that implements an interactive
parser in C++, by all means do so.  Personally, though, I'd rather use
Java.  Or Scheme.  Or Python.  Or ML.  Or Smalltalk.  Or Ruby.  Or
Javascript.  Or ... you get the idea.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]