Hi Aurélien,
Aurélien Aptel <aurelien.ap...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Bastien <b...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Is it still hand written? If so, I think it's ultimately a bad idea
>>> and it should be rewritten using ragel.
>>
>> I guess that's because you're not fluent in english, but this sounds
>> a bit "peremptory". We are not only interested in code, we are also
>
> Sorry I've made a bad impression or if my remarks feels a bit
> passive-agressive. It's harder (and longer) for me to write in
> english, yes :p
No problem!
>> interested in learning from each others. That's what make this list
>> a nice place to live in. If you have code or explanations you want
>> to share, please do!
>
> From my classes, I thought it was widely accepted that sufficiently
> complex parsers should now be written by a tool like ragel. But again
> I'm not experienced, I never had to parse a complex language.
Writing an Org parser with Ragel looks like an interesting project in
itself, theoretically speaking -- and you will find great minds around
that will follow and support your progress on this.
But for a GSoC project, we have to think in very practical terms ("how
will this improve the current code-base?) Achim's remarks are good
ones. And remember potential mentors are volunteers, the same ones
that (try to) maintain Org everyday.
Anyway, I'm glad to learn about Ragel. But as I said, my priority
goes to anything that can help Nicolas parser (testing, learning,
adding new backends, etc.)
Thanks,
--
Bastien
