On 2010-07-02 09:23, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:49:25 +0300
Adem<listmem...@letterboxes.org> wrote
[...]
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.
Means?
I still don't understand what do you really want to achieve.
Call it some form of perfectionism, if you like. Or 'unionism', for a
slightly better term. (reasons below)
There are currently several different pascal parsers with different abilities
for different purposes. For example the fpc one for compiling, synedit for
highlighting, codetools has several for directives, declarations,
indentations, fcl has one basic and extendable parser and so forth.
Each one has abilities that the others do not have.
That's just it: There are simply too many of them neither one is as
complete or up-to-date as the original.
And, the reason there are too many simply boils down to the fact that
the real/genuine/true one wasn't/isn't available.
I mean, it's not as if you need a completely different parser for IDE
purposes; the fact that you have to write and maintain one is because
you have to do it.
And, as expected, each one of those baby-parsers are merely partial
emulators of the actual one.
I am surprised you (plural) don't see this as waste of resources, but
instead tell *me* it would be a waste of time to refactor the fpc-code
so that its parser can be used (or extended, as the case may be) as a
blackbox module downstream in all those projects which shouldn't have
had to write parsers.
What do you want to use the fpc parser for?
It's not 'fpc parser' in the sense that it cannot be used anywhere else;
it is a parser that is currently used solely within free-pascal
compiler. I would like it to be available to other people too.
Isn't this a good enough reason?
Do I have to have an ulterior motive? Shall I invent one :)
[...]
So, could I now ask for some constructive --instead of discouraging-- criticism.
The fear of slowing down the compiler and its development without seeing the
gain is discouraging.
I do sympathize with those fears; but, as you'll agree, worries about
speed degradation can only be meaningfully addressed (put to rest) when
the actual code is available --no amount of talk or assurances can
help/change that.
Now, about 'gain':
I think you're overlooking medium/long term benefits.
When you turn the parser into a module (for the purposes of usage
downstream, in IDE etc.), what you will have actually done is to make
that 'parser module' replaceable too.
That alone can be worth its weight in gold, in the sense that from then
on, you can use other 'parser module's --such as, you name it, 'C
module', 'Modula module', 'Java module' etc. etc.
And, that expands horizons, brings in more talent.
Which cannot be bad for FPC, can it?
Cheers,
Adem
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
