Re: Standalone problem to test syntax rules

[Marco Gerards <mgerards@xs4all.nl>]

Bean <bean123ch@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:06:49PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> You are right that it has advantages.  But I prefer using an Abstract
>> Syntax Tree.  It is used a lot in most literature on parsers, clean
>> and easy to understand.
>> 
>> The disadvantage is that you need a separate free routine for each
>> kind of node.  But heck, we can even generalize this!
>> 
>> I agree there is a lot of room for improvement.  But stepping away
>> from using ASTs is not the way to go in my opinion.
>
> Using AST or binary tree is only a matter of choice. If you think AST is
> better, I will modify the code to use AST.

The code already uses an AST.  Or what do you mean?

If I am not mistaken, you are going over parser.y to make it work with
more situations and to introduce proper error handling.  Or am I
mistaken?

> Would you take a look at the program, especially the error recover rules. 
> I think it can handle all situation, but you never know until it's fully
> tested.

In the tarball?

--
Marco