Am 18.10.2010 14:01, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich: > Florian Klaempfl schrieb: >>> One goal of this refactoring is the determination and documentation of >>> the actions, required in certain pieces of the grammar. >> >> Why should we need these actions? > > Yes, that's one of the big questions. What is that funny call to XYZ > good for, in this particular place? What has to be changed, when a new > attribute is introduced? etc...
And? > >> I still don't see a need to get the parser more robust, if it's possible >> at all. The front end including the parser is one of the simplest, >> robust and stable parts of the compiler. > > You seem to have missed that the parser itself is unchanged - only the > connection to the related data structures (symbol tables...) is sorted out. ... which that makes things really hard to overlook: code spread over multiple locations for nothing. > > >> With all the drawbacks like: >> - people knowing the old code for 15 years having to dig into new code > > never change a running program? ;-) Yes. The current parser fulfills its purpose perfectly. FPC doesn't need multiple parser or whatever. > >> - slower > > how much? Even if it small, multiple small changes add up. > >> - code spread over multiple locations > > yes, the existing code could be concentrated into less units. No, I wrote locations, see above. > >> - lost svn blame history > > not necessarily. You reformatted and moved a lot of code, so a lot of it is lost. > >> - last but not least, you coding style does not follow the compiler code >> style > > that is? See existing code and http://wiki.freepascal.org/Coding_style and you should also know that it is changed because you re-formatted code. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
