[Newcompiler] [AST] Comments from RBParser

[Stéphane Ducasse]

Excellent!
I agree it would be good to have one parser to rule them all :)


On 5 août 06, at 01:26, Andrew Tween wrote:

> Sorry Math. I confused you with the guy working on the Gutenberg  
> pretty printer,
> that was why I mentioned the Dolphin formatter.
>
>> But the question is do we continue to maintaine RBParser or make our
>> SqueakParser compatible with RB so we can "removed" RBParser(make  
>> it as
>>  an interface like Parser2)?
>
> It would be best to have a single parser which serves all the  
> things that need
> to parse.
> Then there is just one parser to maintain.
>
>>
>> And I know that you have your parser to for shout...
>
> There is no reason why Shout couldn't use a Smacc parser, or RB or  
> something
> else. The main reason it has a separate parser is because Shout  
> doesn't need a
> parse tree, all it needs is a sequence of token ranges. Producing a  
> tree, only
> to discard it, slows down the dynamic nature of Shout (since the  
> coloring
> updates on every keystroke). When I wrote the Shout parser, I  
> wasn't familiar
> with Smacc, and attempts at modifying/subclassing the Squeak parser  
> were
> unsuccessful. Hence the separate Shout parser. But a Smacc parser  
> that produced
> a token sequence (no tree) would be better.
>
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think that we have too many parsers ;)
> But we are definately moving in the right direction, and hopefully  
> things will
> become unified in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Math
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________ 
>> ______
>> Découvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque  
>> soit le sujet
> !
>> Yahoo! Questions/Réponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos  
>> opinions et vos
> expériences.
>> http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>