I understand completely. I've written enough of our sexpr code to know how it works and where it's strengths and weaknesses lie. I just want to make sure broken file formats are flagged as such by any parsers that we write. If our output formatters are creating these files, that is an all together different issue that needs to be addressed.
At some point, if I ever get the time, I would like to review this. It might be useful use a property tree like parser/formatter such as how xml is handled or some other similar construct rather than the way we are doing it now. I took a look at the boost::property_tree class it looks like a possible candidate. I was hoping to do something like this for the new schematic file format. It's primarily a issue of finding the free time to learn something new at the moment. On 09/09/2016 10:38 AM, Mark Roszko wrote: > ....the existing parser is "by the seat of our pants" style parsing > where there is no centralized parsing logic and instead > manual definition of expected tokens for every single parsable atom > and well, this has led to places where expectRightParenthesis() isn't > called and the like. But that won't break anything because it > continues walking down the token list after the case for an atom is > executed. > > Meh, I probably suck at explaining ^ > > Looks like I forgot to submit a patch for these files as I submitted > one for another template file before that I think JP commited. Because > my strict SEXPR parser barked :3 > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hmm. I took another look at this patch and I'm concerned as to why the >> page layout template parser did not choke on this. That should be fixed >> as well. >> >> On 9/8/2016 2:56 PM, Werner Almesberger wrote: >>> The default and logo page layout templates are missing some opening >>> parentheses. Eeschema's parser accepts them anyway, but it tripped >>> my s-expr parser. >>> >>> The gost templates and the built-in default in >>> common/page_layout/page_layout_default_description.cpp >>> are both correct. >>> >>> - Werner >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
