Automatic code refactoring
sylvain.joyeux at m4x.org
Wed Mar 2 09:12:06 UTC 2005
> The benefit is that all these languages already have BNF/EBNF files
> readily available and so a centralized parser will reduce develop time
> of new language support, as well as reduce the likely-hood of
> incorrectly parsing these new languages.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my courses in compilation are quite old ...
BNF/EBNF grammars are a way to write grammars. In fact, they are made of
production rules, which is a formalism used to express the grammars of
most of the parsing algorithms but ...
The main problem is the parsing algorithm ... most of the tractable
algorithms can't use these grammars directly because they are too
> In many cases, the BNFs could also be used to derive some scope
> information from the source, leading to better autocompletion, among
> other things.
As I understand it, a common code model (like the one currently in use) can
do that too.
Moreover, having a common parser won't help you to write new code while
refactoring. The syntax is different, and I don't think you can write code
using the BNF syntax, you can only *read* it.
 In fact, that's not entirely true for simple languages. The only
language for which I'm sure it is true is C++. The guy who will produce a
parsing algorithm able to parse C++ easily will be the compiler writers
More information about the KDevelop-devel