> One goal of this refactoring is the determination and documentation of
> the actions, required in certain pieces of the grammar.
Why should we need these actions?
> In the first
> step the semantic code simply reflects the actions in the existing code,
> i.e. *how* something is done. In furthe
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
Am 17.10.2010 17:45, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
Am 17.10.2010 11:19, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Further development should be synced better with the trunk. Please let
me know about the chances, that the required hooks are merged into the
Am 17.10.2010 17:45, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
> Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
>> Am 17.10.2010 11:19, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
>>> Further development should be synced better with the trunk. Please let
>>> me know about the chances, that the required hooks are merged into the
>>> trunk.
>>
>>
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
Am 17.10.2010 11:19, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Further development should be synced better with the trunk. Please let
me know about the chances, that the required hooks are merged into the
trunk.
I won't merge it and take the burden to be responsible for a broken
Am 17.10.2010 11:19, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
>
> Further development should be synced better with the trunk. Please let
> me know about the chances, that the required hooks are merged into the
> trunk.
I won't merge it and take the burden to be responsible for a broken
compiler for no gain
Hans-Peter Diettrich schrieb:
Now I started another branch, that is not as "intrusive" as my other
branches. The AltParser branch makes multiple parsers available, each of
which sits in its own class derived from TParser.
After some tries I've arrived at a working model. The semantic actions,
