Re: [Opencxx-users] future directions

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

>>All I'm pondering about now is whether optionally removing the C++ keywords
>>would get us closer to a C parser, and if so, what else needs to be done to
>>complete the step so opencxx could be used for both languages.
> 
> 
> This is an interesting question, i.e. can the "common factor" of C and C++
> parser be factored out and how.
> 
> Switching between C/C++ keywords should be easy with existing code.
> Moreover, lexer is encapsulated, so this is not an issue too. The fun
> begins in parser.

indeed. For the lexer we might get away with a dynamically assigned token
table (one for C and one for C++), but for the parser we may have a parser base
that deals with the common statements that are valid in C as well as C++ while
a derived C parser recognizes valid C that is not valid C++ (such as

void foo()
int x, int y
{
}

and a derived C++ parser that deals with the C++ specific stuff.

> I think it depends. There are many possible AST object models. In
> particular, existing Ptree hierarchy gives raise to one of them. Having
> read-only type-safe API along this model is quite easy, it is just a
> matter of determining the Car/Cdr paths. If this API is useful and
> convenient is another question.

right.

regards,
		Stefan