Front page | perl.perl6.internals.api.parser |
Postings from November 2000
Simon Cozens <simon@cozens.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:02:31PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer can't be > anywhere > > near as separate as we'd like. I think we're going to end up with a > rather > > odd mutant beast. Hopefully one that's understandable by reasonably sane > > people... > > This would *honestly* be my preference; I think it would be far easier to > write and understand than anything else. So long as it's nicely re-entrant > we > should be fine. My only worry is, how do we reconcile this with the idea of > Perl having an easily modifiable grammar and being a good environment for > little-language stuff? That's basically where I've been talking about a "creole processor", which would in these terms be a pre-preprocessor, I imagine. This was also my original source of confusion, since I thought that this was the primary goal of the "pre-processor". What I've worked on is something that takes in "creoles" or modes of perl or "little-language stuff" and turns it into pure perl before actual interpretation. I think it's simpler and may make more sense to turn it into perl than to have each creole spit out syntax trees. It's the difference between a bunch of little anthill add-ons versus a bunch of big everest add-ons, whether compiled in or linked, whether perl or api. David Grove pete@petes-place.comThread Previous | Thread Next