Re: gnubol: Anyone actually working on Cobol

[Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>]

Could you expand on this. The parser generators are not very
amenable to modular grammars at all. That is in the sense that
you can easily turn parts of the grammar on and off. It's pretty
easy to turn keyworks on and off via the lexical analyser.

Tim Josling

Boris Kortiak wrote:
> Justin,
> I suspect that while it may be a pain, it would turn out to be the best way in the long run.  Plus it would allow for more "individual" COBOL grammers to exist.  If I want a verb PREFORM to mean the same thing as PERFORM (cause I have real trouble spelling <g>), with a modular approach I could easily (well easier than rewriting the whole thing) add it in.
> 
> I suspect that the other advantage would be that as the standards change, it would simplify updating the compiler to the new standards.
> 
> Don't you think?

--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.