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 email@example.com | 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