Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Best language for implementing compilers? Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:57:25 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 17 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <19-03-006@comp.compilers> References: <19-02-002@comp.compilers> <19-02-004@comp.compilers> <19-02-006@comp.compilers> <19-03-002@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="39530"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: parse Posted-Date: 10 Mar 2019 00:22:00 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2172 On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 01:47:38 -0500 (EST), mertesthomas@gmail.com wrote: >For parsing I don't think that pattern matching leads to correct >results in all cases. I have seen too much buggy attempts to do >parsing with pattern matching. You have seen the approach of bad patterns - you have not seen that patterns are a bad approach. I also have seen some poor attempts made using pattern matching - when the patterns are too general, or don't cover 100% the intended cases - there will be unintended matches. Pattern matching is only as exacting as you make it. It doesn't necessarily save you any time or code ... what it does do is make the code more manageable and easier to verify. George