On 2010-07-02 07:33, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Besides that, many people (including several that worked on the FPC parser)
have warned you that such a beast, while more elegant on paper, might actually
be harder to maintain than two parsers.
You chose to ignore that.
No.
I did not ignore that.
In fact, I did make a very bold note of it.
But, it's not as if this is a 'suicide mission' --no one is going to
commit suicide or intend to harm anyone in the process.
Far from it.
If indeed it turns out to be an impossible task, it's not as if we have
staked our lives on it, we can abort the 'mission' <g> anytime we run
out of steam.
And, about having to maintain 2 parsers.
Well.. the whole point is to *not* maintain any more than *one* parser
--and, that includes current n parsers (I am not sure what the value of
'n' is).
That is the target.
If we get there?
Great. Something good will have come out of it.
If not?
Well..
We'll have at least tried.
So, could I now ask for some constructive --instead of discouraging--
criticism.
Cheers,
Adem
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
