I also would like to see a standard Squeak parser that is clearer and
easier to work with.  Another starting point might be the refactoring-
browser's parser.  Why not?!   It is under scrutiny by a large number
of people, and it's been proven useful for refactoring, rule-based code
rewriting, and for "lint" checking.  I haven't looked real closely at the
RB's parser, but from the outside it sounds promising.


But anyway, what would people really like out of a parser?  Here are
some possibilities:

	1. A clear parse-tree structure and symbol table.  This was my primary
motivation behind finally writing a custom parser for Lucid: Squeak's
parser appears to be highly geared towards compilation, and it loves to
use encoded integers that end up embedded in byte codes.  Also, for
analyzing code in the abstract, it is nice to have explicit nested
symbol tables that can be inspected after the parser has finished.

	2. Ability to generate parse trees from code, not just Smalltalk code. 
This is useful for parsing alternative languages like Prolog.

	3. Ability to execute statements straight out of a parse tree.  Or at
the least, the ability to generate a block from a parse tree which can
later be evaluated.  (blocks and methods are very similar in the
abstract, but they aren't in Squeak).  It just seems like this should be
possible, due to the nature of what a parse tree is.

	4. Ability to make simple pattern-based modifications to a parse tree. 
This is useful for partial evaluation, as well as anywhere that the
refactoring browser's rewrite tool would be useful.

	5. Ability to clone a parse tree into a different format, so that, eg,
the CCodeGenerator can continue to work.



-Lex



Dwight Hughes <dwighth at ipa.net> wrote:
> Hal's Squeak compiler stuff is at 
> http://www.hellblazer.com/personal/squeak/
> 
> Hal approached the design of the new compiler in a very "engineered"
> fashion -- the result is somewhat larger and structurally more complex
> than the current design. While it might be more easily extended in some
> ways, I found it to be rather unsatisfying since it added overall
> complexity in an area I would most like to see simplified and clarified
> instead.
> 
> -- Dwight
> 
> Les Tyrrell wrote:
> > 
> > About the compiler: Once upon a time, Hal Hildebrand wrote a parser/compiler
> > for Squeak which he called "Loki".  I meant to give you a nice tidy web reference
> > to this earlier, but I have not been able to find it.  I could give you a link
> > to the source files, but the laptop I have them on is dead right now.
> > 
> > So, perhaps someone out there might have a link or more information?
> > 
> > - les