Kenneth Cavness pounded furiously on the keyboard:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Mark Coletti wrote:
> > Being somewhat gifted with a little free time, I was
> > contemplating tackling the hideousness of the command parser.
> > Specifically, I want to gut and replace it with a _real_ parser,
one
> > written using lex and yacc. It would be more efficent and
certainly
> > _much_ easier to understand, enhance, and maintain.
> > I'm almost certain that I'm not the first person to dream this
> > up. (At least I hope I'm not!) What I would like to know is what
the
> > status is of similar efforts.
> > Anyone doing this? And is willing to admit it? ;)
> *IF* Yacc/Bison/Lex/Regex can be counted upon to make solid,
> efficient command parsers(I've only just started to look into them),
> then _YES_, by all means this would be the better idea. I am _TIRED_
> of cast 'xxxx' and one-argument parsing! Argh! Do it ! :P
I hear ya; that's one of the reasons I wanted to re-write the
CircleMUD parser! =)
Anyhoo, I left out a more detailed reference to the O'Reilly
_Lex & Yacc_ book in the previous post :
_Lex & Yacc_, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. John R. Levine,
Tony Mason & Doug Brown, 1995. ISBN 1-56592-000-7.
This is a damn fine book and is an invaluable reference for
writing lex and yacc stuff. Relying on man pages alone would only
drive you nuts. Twust me. <smirk>
Mark
--
Mark Coletti | DBA Systems, Inc. Fairfax, VA
mcoletti@clark.net | United States Geological Survey
http://www.clark.net/pub/mcoletti | Office of Standards & Technology
If code was meant to be portable, it'd have wheels.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST