Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon (?) brought up the problem that we might end up with a
monolithic
> > beastie
>
> I don't recall saying anything about it being a problem. :)
Ok, it scared somebody. That much I remember.
> > Reading what you say, "parser/lexer/tokenizer"
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:27:24AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, it's time to try again, and this time I think it's best to skip the
> specifics of parameters and suchlike things.
>
> How do we want the parser/lexer/tokenizer piece to work, and what sorts of
> hooks do we want to provide t
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:08:37PM +, David Grove wrote:
> Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a
> parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multiple input "languages". Yes I know
> that GCC does F77/ASM/C/C++ but I'm not sure those completely relate.
That does relate
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Keeping in mind the input is source, and
> the output is a syntax tree)
Will you be my hero?
Or
Your clarity is sincerely appreciated.
Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a
parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multipl
