W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically?

From: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:05:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP045AorH3Jd3=MxavZvER3h+jXPLdZdaWic3DfG2cwYdwNSPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> Marcos Caceres:
>
>  The binding part… the syntax part is a different matter. The syntax
>> part is much more clear (though it would have been nice if it would
>> have been written for a parser), but the only proper parser I've seen
>> has issues in that it's machine generated:
>>
>> https://github.com/darobin/**webidl.js<https://github.com/darobin/webidl.js>
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about being written for a parser.  A grammar
> is a perfect basis for a parser, no? :)  (And you can't get much simpler
> than an LL(1) grammar for a language like this, in terms of writing a
> parser.)
>

FWIW, I've found the grammar to be extremely useful for building the parser
we're using for Gecko.

- Kyle
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 19:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC