On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> >
> > > Alternatively, we could redesign the configuration parsing engine
> > > to be a yacc+lex thing. We'd trade some flexibility
> > > (lexically-variable lex parsers are hard to implement - if it's
> > > possible at all) in favour of genericity. Of course, this would
> > > unfortunately also mean that Robert's generic parser work should
> > > be dropped.
> >
> > I do not have up-to-date information, but lex and yacc were not
> > portable enough 5 years ago. They were also huge. I do not know what
> > you mean by "lexically-variable lex parsers", but I am sure yacc+lex
> > can do everything Squid would ever need. Squid does not need more that
> > LALR(1) parser, does it?
>
> How would you suggest having code modules
> dynamically register their configuration directives
> in a lex+yacc system?
> I'm sure it can be done, I'm not sure as to how
> without requiring huge hackery.
IMO, all configuration directives (and, hence, all modules) should use
the same syntax. Each directive can use only a part of the allowed
language constructs, of course, but there should be one language for
all. Squid does not need module-dependent configuration languages.
$0.02,
Alex.
Received on Wed Mar 27 2002 - 10:26:09 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:54 MST