Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file

> >
> > Initially not, but now, when I am thinking about it, I don't think so
> Bison helps. The syntax of the filter file is nicely linear. Now, the code
> of the parser is a little bit larger than minimalistic, but it is due to
> nicer error's messages. The raw implementation in Bison raised just "syntax
> error" and positions. I did code refactoring, and now the scanning, parsing
> and processing are divided into separated routines. Parsing related code
> has 90 lines. In this case, I don't think using a parser grammar file can
> carry any benefit. grammar is more readable, sure, but we need to include
> bison, we need to handle errors, and if we want to raise more helpful
> errors than just "syntax error", then the code will be longer.
>
> I'm not so concerned by code size, but rather parsing of quotations etc and
> being able to reason about it's correctness.  IMHO that's easier done by
> reading a defined grammar than parsing a handwritten parser.
>
>
In this case the complex part is not a parser, but the scanner is complex
and writing this in flex is not too easy. I wrote so the grammar file can
be more readable, but the usual error from Bison is "syntax error" and
position, so it does not win from the user perspective. When a parser is
not linear, then a generated parser can help a lot, but using it at this
moment is premature.


> Will do a closer review on the patch shortly.
>
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson               https://vmware.com/
>
>