On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Wil Macaulay wrote: > Good point. When using Flex/Bison to parse one tune > out of an ABC file, it's probably easier to manually > scan for an apropriate X: header in the input before > starting the Bison parser.
> in other words, do much of the parsing work twice ... No, that's not necessary. Just a small function that fastforwards to the next occurence of an X: header, checks the number of tune, and calls the Bison routine for the actual parsing. > I disagree, but maybe I have a different idea of > 'realistic size'. I think of using something like a wordprocessor or webbrowser written in pure java. > I'd be interested to see what your > opinion would be of Skink. I will have a look at it! > 3/ The userinterface of Java programs is non-native and > IMHO clumsy. > Again, I think that depends on how much work the > implementor put into it. It's not the case on Mac > OSX, since Apple has put a lot of work into making > the UI look and feel native. That is nice. > I consider myself chastised, maestro. ;-) No, that was not my point. If the Java environment works nicely for your purposes on the computer systems that you use, so much the better! However, you asked why other people do not consider using Java, so I described my experiences with it. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
