Re: [Cfengine-develop] Development plan / meeting

[Andrew Stribblehill]

Quoting Mark Burgess <address@hidden> (2003-03-03 11:55:08 GMT):
> 
> Quoting Bas:
> >  - If the parser/lexer is rewritten. We can remove a lot of code
> >    from cfengine. Like checking if we suppply the right keywords
> >    with the right values, eg: Now there are checks everywhere
> >    if we supplied a integer to a keyword. I personnaly think
> >    that this will make the cfengine source more readable, 
> >    extendable and maintenable.
> > 
> 
> I suggest that, along side the current cfengine development,
> someone prototypes a "mockup" new parser, showing the
> structure and grammar.
> 
> That can be incorporated at a later stage. It is such an important
> thing to get right that we need a "toy model" before we can
> do anything "for real".

Forgive me if I get my terminology wrong -- I'm another of those
former physicists and never did any formal compiler work...

What are the types that we need to handle? Obviously, strings and
integers. Should permissions be a basic type? How about booleans? IP
ranges? Enums?

At present, we're parsing a lot as if it's a string, then at
work-time, checking to see if it makes sense. With some well-chosen
basic types we can move loads of checking to the parse stage and
simplify code.

-- 
MALIN HEBRIDES
SOUTHEAST VEERING SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7 OCCASIONALLY GALE 8. SHOWERS
THEN RAIN. GOOD, BECOMING MODERATE OR POOR