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

Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 110 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 110 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Alan Manuel Gloria:
> It *might*.  I suggest we need better names.  We don't really need to
> prefix with "it_expr", for example.  So maybe "normal_it_expr" and
> "special_it_expr" instead.

Good names are always a good idea!
I've switched to those names; if anyone has an even better
idea, please speak up.

> Having more rules helps in discussing rules,


> and may help suggest how
> to organize a top-down recursive descent parser.

The current structure is specially rigged to be especially easy
to implement as a recursive descent parser.  But if it's too hard to follow,
it's not a good idea; *people* need to understand it too :-).

> However, we might want to ask Mark H. Weaver directly if this helps
> clarify the BNF.


Mark H. Weaver - would splitting it up into more-but-smaller rules help?

--- David A. Wheeler