Hi,
> I've got a bit of my parser going
Great :)
> and am now wondering what I should
> parse the elements into. My initial thought was to extend FAMIX and
> then create appropriate elements of it. I'm not sure that's
> appropriate, and would appreciate some advice.
>
> First, it looks as if the sample smalltalk parser uses the AST from
> RB,
> and not the FAMIX models directly.
The Smalltalk importer traverses the AST provided by RB to produce a
FAMIX model.
> Second, there are clear differences between the FAMIX models and the
> immediate parse results. For example, suppose I have a variable (or
> dataset for SAS) named X. The parser may treat each as distinct,
> while
> my model needs to describe the single entity to which each
> occurrence of
> the name refers. That single entity will have much richer information
> (relations to other variables, the block of source code in which the
> variable is defined or referenced ....) than the parser would
> initially
> care about.
Exactly. You want the analysis model to be richer than the AST.
> On the other hand, I could use the FAMIX models in initially a
> lightweight way; otherwise it seems I could end up with fairly
> duplicative parser classes and model classes.
>
> So, would it be best to parse directly into my model classes, or to
> parse into some other AST that is later used to make the model?
If you want a strong model, than doing it in two passes is what you
want:
- first build the AST
- then resolve the relationships and build a richer model
Cheers,
Doru
> Thanks.
> Ross Boylan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Beauty is where we see it."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Locked
