Richard Hughes wrote: > Sure, I don't disagree there, it makes sense. The hard part is > scanning for an end-of-table marker, although just using END_DATA > would cover 99% of cases.
That's certainly what my parser does. After END_DATA it again expects either keywords or a table identifier, and if it finds the latter, it increments the table index. The only difference between that state and the initial state of the parser is that keyword values are inherited from the preceding table. Graeme Gill. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Lcms-user mailing list Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
