Yes but value returns a ref to a ref so the user can still do that already.
On Aug 15, 2014, at 13:33, Durand Jean-Damien <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO I'd do nothing, the documentation states things clearly, the two error > paths are for very different things. > In addition returning undef from value() could be a semantic user choice, not > a invalid parse tree isn't it? > > Le vendredi 15 août 2014 02:31:46 UTC+2, Ron Savage a écrit : >> >> On Friday, 15 August 2014 10:05:58 UTC+10, Christopher Layne wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1650 PT, Ron Savage <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > On Friday, 15 August 2014 09:15:46 UTC+10, Christopher Layne wrote: >>> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 1523 PT, Ron Savage <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Questions: >>> > > >>> > > Are these for C or Perl or both? >>> > > >>> > > 1.) What should be its name? [Probably not doit() ]. >>> > > >>> > > I'd like it to be called process(). >>> > >>> > process() as an additional method also sounds find to me, although it's a >>> > bit non-parser like. However, the latter probably doesn't matter as it's >>> > an OO interface, and $parser->process() does make sense in that context. >>> > >>> > I do prefer process(), but now read_all() comes to mind. >>> >>> I also thought about read_all() but the problem is that the _all() part >>> implies "read all of the input." That's already what read() is doing and a >>> matching call would be read_partial() which also wouldn't really be >>> involved with what we're shooting for. I think your original process() is >>> better than read_all(). $parser->run() would also work, as that's kind of >>> what value() is already doing. I've always thought value() was named >>> somewhat strangely for what it actually did - regardless of the fact that >>> it returns value(s) for the parse. Perhaps that's because value() usually >>> implies something already computed whereas value() itself definitely has >>> significant side-effects. That wouldn't change though. >> >> Agreed. Forget read_all(). >> >> As for run(), I think it's too general....... >> >> As for value(), I would probably have called it result(), or perhaps even >> status(). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "marpa parser" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
