On 7/5/06, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greets,
I've finished a provisional implementation of the project I
originally proposed as "Configurator". Turns out the name
"Configurator", which I suspected would be relatively rare -- it is a
bastardization after all -- is just ridiculously common. So, new
name: Charmonizer. (Which I pronounce charm-uh-nizer, rather than
see-harmonizer.) 8 Google hits to 13,700,000, and more descriptive
of what it does anyway.
The implementation uses a domain-specific language, as per Dave's
suggestion. The syntax is quite crude, so that a heavy-duty
recursive descent parser won't be needed. For the language
description, see the README file, near the bottom of the patch.
Comments? Commit it then refine, or hold off?
I like it. This is exactly what I had in mind. Go ahead and commit it.
I've haven't prepared any unit tests, since I wanted to get this out
of the lab, but we'll definitely need a battery for each interpreter
implementation.
I agree. I'll try and write a ruby interpreter asap.
