From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f384032a8c47ef0d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!feeder.enertel.nl!nntpfeed-01.ops.asmr-01.energis-idc.net!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!proxad.net!infeed-2.proxad.net!news5-e.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:01:25 +0100
From: Lionel Draghi <Lionel.nospam.Draghi@Ada-France.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR;
 rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Debian/1.7.8-1
X-Accept-Language: fr-fr, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about OpenToken
References: <439b6ac7$0$20862$636a55ce@news.free.fr>
 <koru38urowa2.lth4qnymn9ac.dlg@40tude.net>
 <439c6eab$0$20191$636a15ce@news.free.fr>
 <163minks9ygxl$.tww5gn7kaioj.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <163minks9ygxl$.tww5gn7kaioj.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <439cafc6$0$29626$636a15ce@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Dec 2005 00:01:26 MET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.236.216.140
X-Trace: 1134342086 news5-e.free.fr 29626 82.236.216.140:36781
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6841
Date: 2005-12-12T00:01:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
..
> There are many approaches to parsing. I am using table driven parsers. For
> a descent recursive parser I just change the table to match the source
> against depending on the context. I presume that something similar can be
> done with OpenToken as well.

I have no special preferences. I have a simple grammar to implement, and 
  my main criteria is simplicity.
When reading OpenToken's doc, I had the impression that a descent 
recursive parser was easier to write (even if beta).
That's probably wrong. For example, my grammar is not LL1, and this 
cause an extra work when using descent parser in OpenToken.

The fact is that I have spent to much time on this topic.
I am about to give-up doing the full analysis with OpenToken, and be 
back to "hand made" analysis. I know that this will becomes a nigthmare 
when the grammar will grow in complexity, but for now it's still OK.

-- 
Lionel Draghi