Re: GNAT.Regpat problem.

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:12:04 -0400, Peter C. Chapin wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> So, yes, it is difficult to find a case where RE could find place. And in 
>> general, any patterns are unusable for syntax analyzers for many reasons, 
>> I don't want to go into. A manually written scanner is simpler and safer.
> 
> I did notice that it was harder, I thought, to get high quality error 
> reporting when using packaged REs. I also had a case that used a hand 
> written finite state machine.

I prefer to split it into smaller elements (e.g. "comment," "literal") for
a recursive descent parser and then code them without FSM. I hate FSMs. I
have to use FSM when dealing with layered protocols, which makes me hating
it more and more.

> The code was longer but the error reporting 
> was very specific. I'm not saying it would be impossible to get the same 
> error reporting using REs but it seemed unnatural. Right now my code using 
> REs just reports "Unrecognized input" (or something to that effect) and 
> doesn't bother trying to figure out what's unrecognized and why. It was no 
> big deal to get the hand written FSM to do that, however.

That reminds me one case for patterns I forgot. When you get something
incomprehensible you might wish to jump forward to a place where parser
could recover. E.g. to the end of a comment, to the n-th closing bracket
etc (standard REs cannot count brackets). For this kind of superficial +
error tolerant analysis patterns indeed might be usable. A similar case
would be syntax coloring.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de