Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #9066

Re: Why have a separate lexer instead of parsing 'all the way down'?

Show all headers | View raw

On 29/07/18 00:11, luser droog wrote:
<snip>

> What are the considerations for preferring to have a separate lexer or not?

<snip>

> I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts one way or the other, hoping that
> the topic is sufficiently esoteric that flame wars are unlikely and any
> strongly held opinions have at least some entertaining anecdote behind them.


No anecdote, I'm afraid, and neither am I sufficiently animated about 
the topic to get all worked up by it.

But, for what it's worth, I prefer a separate lexing process on the 
rather pragmatic grounds that I find it easier to write easy code than I 
do to write difficult code. Ploughing through a stream looking for 
tokens and building them into a symbol chain for later parsing is a damn 
sight easier (for me, at least!) than trying to parse them as I go.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why have a separate lexer instead of parsing 'all the way down'? luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-28 16:11 -0700
  Re: Why have a separate lexer instead of parsing 'all the way down'? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2018-07-29 10:06 +0200
  Re: Why have a separate lexer instead of parsing 'all the way down'? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-07-29 12:19 +0100
    Re: Why have a separate lexer instead of parsing 'all the way down'? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:02 -0700

csiph-web