On 2010-05-31 15:42, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Adem wrote:
True. In order to avoid this sort of thing all together, the best
solution would be making the compiler use a parse tree.
Florian already explained at the start of the discussion that this is
not feasable because of speed and memory penalties.
I am not a compiler author, so I do not wish to be arguing with experts;
but, it's not as if we have both alternatives to measure and chose the
best on the aggregate.
I can see that it is expected to be slower and will need more memory;
but, we don't know is how much slower and how much more memory it will
need. And, whether these will be noticeable/bearable considering what we
gey out of it.
But, failing that, adding/altering the needed code in the parser
still looks like a lot easier (less effort) than doing it with a
completely separate parser.
Strange, I had come to the opposite conclusion based on all the
replies you got.
From the replies I got, all I can conclude is that it will (would) be a
very hard task to do. That does not necessarily mean that --once it gets
done-- adding changes or new stuff will also be that hard to that
particular code path.
--
Cheers,
Adem
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
