Re: the de-facto way to "parse" input
- From: "Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:24:18 +0100
"Krumble Bunk" <krumblebunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news
On Jun 11, 2:46 pm, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@xxxxxx> wrote:You could also check out MiniBasic, on my website. Essentially writing a mini-language for a shell is the same as writing a Basic interpreter, except expressions consist of pipes and globs and redirections more often than arithmetical operators. Most shells even have their own looping constructs.Krumble Bunk wrote:
[.....]
the tokens, /and do nothing else/.)
And likely throw away the first attempt, as a learning exercise.
--
"I don't make decisions. I'm a bird." /A Fine and Private Place/
Hewlett-Packard Limited Cain Road, Bracknell, registered no:
registered office: Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England
Very good advice - I will investigate using lex/yacc.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
.
- References:
- the de-facto way to "parse" input
- From: Krumble Bunk
- Re: the de-facto way to "parse" input
- From: Chris Dollin
- Re: the de-facto way to "parse" input
- From: Krumble Bunk
- the de-facto way to "parse" input
- Prev by Date: Re: Question
- Next by Date: Re: destroying objects
- Previous by thread: Re: the de-facto way to "parse" input
- Next by thread: Re: the de-facto way to "parse" input
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
