Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:06:49PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote: >> You are right that it has advantages. But I prefer using an Abstract >> Syntax Tree. It is used a lot in most literature on parsers, clean >> and easy to understand. >> >> The disadvantage is that you need a separate free routine for each >> kind of node. But heck, we can even generalize this! >> >> I agree there is a lot of room for improvement. But stepping away >> from using ASTs is not the way to go in my opinion. > > Using AST or binary tree is only a matter of choice. If you think AST is > better, I will modify the code to use AST.
The code already uses an AST. Or what do you mean? If I am not mistaken, you are going over parser.y to make it work with more situations and to introduce proper error handling. Or am I mistaken? > Would you take a look at the program, especially the error recover rules. > I think it can handle all situation, but you never know until it's fully > tested. In the tarball? -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
