Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:38, Juancarlo A�ez wrote: > > >> I originally used JavaCC as a quick way to get an RCS archive parser. But the >format of those archives is so simple that a hand-written parser would be more >efficient, and wouldn't be hard to do. My experience with syntax directed lexical >analysis makes me think that a hand-made parser would be smaller and faster. >> >> I propose that the dependency on JavaCC be removed from JRCS. It doesn't have to be >done right away, but it should be added to the TODO list. >> >> +1 >> >> Points in favor of JavaCC: The current parser works and is very easy to understand. > > Even for simple things I really like using JavaCC because it's so well > known. I know that a hand parser can be written but even for simple > things I just stick with JavaCC. I just wonder if the speed gained would > really be worth the added complexity. I leave it to you though because > I'm probably not going to be in that package any time soon if at all.
I also prefer a generated parser (but do as you will :-). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
