[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Scripting

From: Hollis Blanchard
Subject: Re: Scripting
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:54:57 -0600

On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Marco Gerards wrote:

Serbinenko Vladimir <address@hidden> writes:
What kind of parser is it?

It's a direct parser with aritmetic subparser. Main parser is
grub_bash_execute, arithmetic subparser is grub_bash_eval_arith.
grub_bash_execute determinates the special cases (loops,conditions,
functions,...) for other cases (commands,assignments, function calling)
it calls grub_bash_split_tokens, grub_bash_expand_braces and

 I have never seen this in a top-down or bottom-up parser I have
I don't like to write the things reffering every time to algorithm.
Genereally I take some ideas and I write myself, at my own.

What do you mean?

The problem is that I like proven concepts.  And when you use a
commonly known parser design many people will be able to understand
it.  To me this is REALLY important.  I wonder what other developers
think of that.

I agree. Hand-written parsers are very hairy to implement, with nasty bugs and corner cases. Although I haven't studied the theory, I know that there are traditional parsing/lexing/whatever techniques that are well-understood.

In fact, there's a whole bunch of tools like flex and bison that we could use to avoid hand-written errors. Why don't we use those?


reply via email to

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