Re: Lexx and Yacc

From: Mark Coletti (
Date: 10/31/95

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,
> > written using lex and yacc.  It would be more efficent and
> > _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
> > 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 Coletti                       |  DBA Systems, Inc.  Fairfax, VA                 |  United States Geological Survey  |  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