Re: Now, to try again...

Nicholas Clark <[email protected]> wrote:

 > On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
 > > 
 > > Bart Lateur <[email protected]> wrote:
 > 
 > >  > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the
usefulness
 > of
 > >  > the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one syntax error in
the
 > >  > script, because this will be the normal situation while editing
 > source.
 > >  > Parsers are generally very bad at parsing erroneous code.
 > > 
 > > You're forgetting something. Any such editor would have to be written
 > > either in Perl, or in C with builtin Perl, in order to gain access to
 > this
 > > type of parser feedback. That or we'd have to communicate with perl
 > 
 > When I made the suggestion to give the perl parser enough API to let
 > an editor use it for syntax highlighting, I was thinking of an editor
 > written in C with embedded perl. Such as emacs or vi.
 > 
 > I didn't say that anyone should actually do it :-)

Too late. ;-)

 > [or that it wouldn't be usably fast on anything expensive enough to
come
 > with less than 1Gb RAM as standard]
 > Just that it would be nice if the parser API were flexible enough to
make
 > it possible (if not easy) for someone to do it.
 > As it seemed to be a bit of parser API we'd not yet considered.
 > And this is the parser-api list, so it seemed very on topic.
 > 
 > I think I'm not wrong in saying that making the parser state totally
 > encapsulated makes the parser restartable and goes a long way to making
 > it re-entrant.

Actually, I'm fascinated with the possibilities if it's feasible. Any
objections to a private convo to come up with something feasible? I've hit
these issues pretty hard in the past. Maybe we can come up with something
completely feasible.

p