Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18953
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? |
| Date | 2014-10-26 01:29 +0100 |
| Organization | Hidecs Consultancy |
| Message-ID | <cb2tjjFcqd1U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <m28vlb$lum$1@speranza.aioe.org> <cauih2F8i6eU1@mid.individual.net> <m2gn14$lpv$1@dont-email.me> |
rickman wrote: > On 10/24/2014 4:56 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote: >> Don Y wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> [I probably should direct this at George... :> ] >>> >>> I'm writing a command parser. Some set of commands are "common". >>> But, other instances of the parser are augmented with additional >>> commands/syntax. >>> >>> [These additions are known at compile time, not "dynamic"] >>> >>> Ideally, I want a solution that allows folks developing those >>> "other" commands to just "bolt onto" what I have done. E.g., >>> creating a single "grammar definition" (lex/yacc) is probably >>> not a good way to go (IME, most small parsers tend to be ad hoc). >>> >>> [Note: I can't even guarantee that the extensions will be >>> consistent or "harmonious" with the grammar that I implement] >>> >>> A naive approach (?) might be for my code to take a crack at >>> a particular "statement"/command and, in case of FAIL, invoke >>> some bolt-on parser to give it a chance to make sense out of >>> the input. If *it* FAILs, then the input is invalid, etc. >>> >>> This sounds like an incredible kluge. Any better suggestions? >> >> Hi Don, >> >> Have you looked at Forth? What you are describing sounds like the problem >> that Forth solved back in 1968. It is the sort of thing that Forth >> programmers have been doing for nearly 50 years and it works very >> successfully for us. >> >> See <http://www.mpeforth.com/> and <http://www.forth.com/> > > Don is a hard person to suggest things to. I'm actually surprised that > his response was as positive as it was. > > I have had great success at solving many problems with Forth. There are > text file formats can be read by treating various words as commands, > defining those words in Forth to execute while reading the file and > storing the numeric data where it needs to be stored. Easy peasy. Not > quite the same thing as what Don is likely doing, but very similar. > > Don may be looking for something that will let him check the input for > the correct syntax, number of values, etc. But as usual he has not > really defined the problem he is trying to solve. I don't know if Don has tried playing with Forth or not, I just made a suggestion that what he was seeking to do sounded somewhat Forth-like in nature. With somewhat more difficulty he could probably look at re-creating a MSDOS type environment which would also suit the bill (new commands in batch files etc or added programmes in the COMMAND directory). You are probably right about a lack of Clear, Concise, Correct, Coherent, Complete & Confirmable (Testable) specification of the requirements. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-22 12:14 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-22 12:17 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2014-10-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-22 22:54 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-23 18:36 +0200
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-23 12:10 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2014-10-23 13:45 -0500
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-23 12:15 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2014-10-24 07:05 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-24 08:04 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-10-23 08:22 +1100
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-22 23:25 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-23 04:45 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-23 04:14 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-23 16:49 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-24 07:38 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-26 03:47 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-26 08:41 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-26 14:36 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-26 12:37 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-25 02:02 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-25 01:56 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-25 11:15 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-25 19:37 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2014-10-23 20:04 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-23 22:30 -0500
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 13:36 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-25 13:14 -0500
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 14:23 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-26 00:50 -0500
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 15:29 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-10-24 09:56 +0100
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-24 07:46 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-25 19:54 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-26 12:15 +0000
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-26 09:02 -0700
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 12:13 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 13:35 -0400
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-10-26 01:29 +0100
Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 21:11 -0400
csiph-web