[fpc-devel] Alternative parsers

[Alexander Klenin]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 23:02, Florian Klaempfl <florian at freepascal.org> wrote:
> Am 19.10.2010 13:54, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
>> from fixing case and reformatting of Math unit
>
> This does not help anybody ;)
See, you have already rejected it ;-)
The initial motivation was that current unit have lower-case
procedure names, which is not Delphi-compatible
and messes up code completion.

>> to finishing/extending Paul's work on for..in loop.
> Does it still miss stuff? Actually, I never used it :)

It does not "miss" stuff, but could be extended.
I meant http://wiki.freepascal.org/for-in_loop#Proposed_extensions

> So you looked yourself into the refactored code so you can judge it as
> good? Did you send an email with your comment why it is good?

Actually, I tried to, although svn made it extremely difficult
and I am not aware of git/hg mirror of branches.
The changes are very promising (although IFDEF's are a mess,
but as I understand they are planned for removal).
I did not test and have not enough understanding of FPC internals
to spot any breakage by code inspection, but the readability
and modularization improvements are quite obvious to me.

>Where did you comment on the critism I made?
I have really restrained myself from commenting on them
because I it is hard to do in a polite manner.
Since you insist, I will try:

> - people knowing the old code for 15 years having to dig into new code
Do you even understand how backwards this sounds?
Using the outdatedness of code as an excuse not to refactor it
is usually reserved for big corporations, not modern open-source projects :-)

> - slower
Or maybe faster? Did you benchmark it?
Of did you see a specific location of code which will cause slowdown?

>- code spread over multiple locations
Which is called modularization aka OO, and is IMO the main point of the branch

>- lost svn blame history
use git

>- last but not least, you coding style does not follow the compiler code
style
Which may be trivially fixed (btw, compiler code style is really ...
um... exotic).

>> Well, maybe I should try myself
>> but the experience of others is definitely discouraging.
> Who is others? I remember very few *compiler* patches we rejected.

Sorry, but I do not believe you have forgotten all the recent flame
about the rejected changes ;-)

-- 
Alexander S. Klenin