On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:31:57PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote: > On 10 April 2010 03:37, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:56:18PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote: > >> On 8 April 2010 04:14, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:58:39PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote: > >> >> On 07/04/2010, Seth Hetu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Wrote a proper lexer for HSpeak - nearly: it still produces strings > >> >> >> rather > >> >> >> than lexemes since the rest of HSpeak wouldn't know what to do with > >> >> >> them. > >> >> > > >> >> > Congratulations! May I ask what kind of lexer it is? (Recursive > >> >> > descent, I'm guessing). > >> >> > > >> >> > -->Seth > >> >> > >> >> I thought recursive descent was used only for parsers, not lexers (but > >> >> maybe complicated context sensitive grammars would require them)? > >> >> > >> >> I looked around for parser generators for Euphoria and found one, but > >> >> it had an infexible lexer, so after considering writing my own lexer > >> >> generator I simply hand coded it - just as well, turned out to not be > >> >> much work. The lexer doesn't distinguish numbers yet, but I think I > >> >> shall add that, because I think I shall upgrade HSpeak to use tokens > >> >> rather than strings (which will be a huge change requiring a lot of > >> >> rewriting) > >> > > >> > You know the hspeak code better than I, would it be worth it to try and > >> > move away from euphoria entirely? > >> > > >> > --- > >> > James > >> > >> I don't think Euphoria is that bad a language, and rewriting or > >> porting HSpeak seems like unnecessary work. > >> > >> If frustrated, we could also look at switching to Euphoria 4, or even > >> using one of the preprocessors or forks that add OO and so on. > > > > It is not a bad language, but it does cause portability problems. When > > the getdeb.net people were trying to build a debian package for the > > OHRRPGCE, they were pretty frustrated by Euphoria. > > > > I wonder if it would be reasonable for us to just check into subversion > > the c files generated by Euphoria's c converter. That way we can > > continue to develop it in Euphoria, no rewriting needed, but platform > > packagers have the convenience of only needing a C compiler, not a > > Euphoria compiler. > > > > --- > > James > > That sounds like a very good idea. They should go in a sub directory. > And on the topic of sub directories, I think we need some new platform > specific sub directories: the .a files currently in svn are all built > with mingw, which is pretty confusing and requires some annoying > workarounds: for unix users, wip/audwrap/libaudwrap.a (after being > built) needs to be linked against instead of wip/libaudwrap.a. > Something similar for libohrblit.a. Also, the C files generated by > Euphoria are also platform specific (though I don't know whether > they're the same for all unix platforms) > > Moving the dlls would be annoying, they are unambiguous so can stay. > > So wip/windows and wip/unix?
Yes, I agree that would be good. --- James _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
