Marco Gerards wrote:
Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Marco Gerards wrote:
Serbinenko Vladimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What kind of parser is it?
It's a direct parser with aritmetic subparser. Main parser is
grub_bash_execute, arithmetic subparser is grub_bash_eval_arith.
grub_bash_execute determinates the special cases (loops,conditions,
functions,...) for other cases (commands,assignments, function
calling)
it calls grub_bash_split_tokens, grub_bash_expand_braces and
grub_bash_expand_dollar
I have never seen this in a top-down or bottom-up parser I have
studied.
I don't like to write the things reffering every time to algorithm.
Genereally I take some ideas and I write myself, at my own.
What do you mean?
The problem is that I like proven concepts. And when you use a
commonly known parser design many people will be able to understand
it. To me this is REALLY important. I wonder what other developers
think of that.
I agree. Hand-written parsers are very hairy to implement, with nasty
bugs and corner cases. Although I haven't studied the theory, I know
that there are traditional parsing/lexing/whatever techniques that are
well-understood.
Right. But I would not have a problem with a hand written parser, as
long as I can understand it. :)
In fact, there's a whole bunch of tools like flex and bison that we
could use to avoid hand-written errors. Why don't we use those?
One thing that should be looked into before using flex and bison is
how much the binary will grow.
I think less than with hand-writing parser because of its structure
Another thing is how to integrate it
with the command line.
I know how to write it and if you have no objection I'll do it.
Thanks,
Marco
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
