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-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!atl-c08.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc02.usenetserver.com!ALLTEL.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:39:20 -0600 From: "Marc A. Criley" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: about OpenToken References: <439b6ac7$0$20862$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <439c6eab$0$20191$636a15ce@news.free.fr> <163minks9ygxl$.tww5gn7kaioj.dlg@40tude.net> <439cafc6$0$29626$636a15ce@news.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <439cafc6$0$29626$636a15ce@news.free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com Organization: UseNetServer.com X-Trace: aed71439d8b8ca13cf60c09163 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6850 Date: 2005-12-12T08:39:20-06:00 List-Id: Lionel Draghi wrote: > 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. I tried out OpenToken, and while I think it's probably pretty good for nice, rigid grammars, if your needs go beyond that you might need to look elsewhere. (In no way am I criticising OpenToken, there are lots of areas where simple, rigid grammars are all that's needed and OpenToken does an admirable job with them.) For XPath In Ada (XIA) (http://www.mckae.com/xia.html) I used AdaGOOP: http://unicoi.kennesaw.edu/ase/ase02_02/tools/usafa/adagoop. It was a little gnarly to set up and use, since it interacts with lex and yacc variants called scaflex and scayacc, which I had to dork around with to build and use. Once that was done, though, it worked great building me a parser for the XPath grammar. Though of course I had to construct the grammar in the format that AdaGOOP expected, which also caused me a few headaches (the grammar, not the format). Once done, it was done though. Using AdaGOOP is more work than something like OpenToken, but it works well on those more complex grammar's, like XPath's, and since I needed XPath querying for the pending version of DTraq I was motivated to grind through it and get it working. (And then make XIA available to the Ada community :-) -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out