|
I already do that in my hand written parser
CodeExpression expr = null;
var pc2 = pc.GetLookAhead();
pc2.EnsureStarted();
try
{
expr = _ParseCast(pc2);
}
catch { }
if(null!=expr)
{
return _ParseCast(pc);
} else
{
try
{
if (!pc.Advance())
_Error("Unterminated cast or subexpression", pc.Current);
expr=_ParseExpression(pc);
_SkipComments(pc);
if(ST.rparen!=pc.SymbolId)
_Error("Invalid cast or subexpression", pc.Current);
pc.Advance();
return expr;
}
catch(Exception eex)
{
throw eex;
}
}
Ironically that TODO: is already handled by my generated parser (it counts tokens and dumps lookahead) but the above works.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried using local function?
Just an idea! 
|
|
|
|
|
There's an idea. I have not. I haven't really messed with them yet, though I wonder if I should use the newest language features or not. I like to stay a generation or two back with my codebase so it can compile for more people.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Mm... I like to mess up with new feature as soon they come out... so that I get comfy with them! 
And, on the particular case of local function I like them because I don't like to have a method that is used only by another method.. over time and refactoring its origin and purpose might get obscured and funny thing might start to happen... like dead code, or people reusing what should have been a private method, that get changed and broke everything...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see that. For now I just distinguish by putting private in front of my one caller private methods. I leave them blank for other private methods.
The exception is with slang. I explicitly qualify members of types in C# code i feed it with access modifiers because VB demands it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
One state one class, especially in case code is generated 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
One word: XML
Or, ya know, globals. 
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know the code-base or exactly what you're doing but why not make data objects? Yes more classes is more maintenance, but it also expands the vocabulary of your code and if they're just data holders there's not much to maintain. If the data is commonly used together then it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
The data isn't really commonly used together. There's a lot of state, but what state I need at any given time varies wildly, and some very expensive/elaborate state is sometimes used purely to satisfy a single operation, and then tossed (like follows sets)
It's the nature of generating this parser code
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
You should try creating larger and larger tuples to pass back and forth. Be sure never to name any of the components of the tuples, so that your code becomes more and more unreadable:
(int, string, double, double, DateTime, bool) Generate(int X, (int, string, bool) Parameters)
{
....
}
...and so on. This way, you will be sure to develop schizophrenia even more quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, I do use exactly one tuple in my codebase but it has named arguments
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there. Take a minute, breathe and rethink.
There may be nothing at all wrong with what you are doing.
Procedural style can be the correct solution for a given situation. I once had a new programmer come to me and tell me he wanted to rewrite a program piece because it wasn't OO. Cool, go for it. While some of the resultant code was really quite good, a lot of it was un-needed and difficult to read.
Depending on the application, you sometimes start out thinking that a class is going to be the best thing on earth. Later, you find that it never gets reused, will be a lot shorter and clearer in procedural style, so why do it?
Passing 6 or more parameters may be just fine, but the question is have you overridden, expanded, extended, whatever the method beyond its scope and would multiple methods be more concise? It may be a place where the global vars are indeed correct. If properties are only there for 'set and get', you need to reconsider their existence.
In a certain sense, structures really are only a form of global. Their use is generally just clarity: tree.species, tree.color, etc. when they are not being acted upon to where a class is more appropriate. Passing it to a method(s) is probably a class function.
It boils down to architecture. What is the scope and scalability (i.e. future) of what you are writing? In a desktop business app with little or no interaction other than a database (still need all the db handlers obviously), 'down and dirty procedural code' may be just dandy in many cases. Of course, it may not work, as well. But we really can't tell that without an architect/analyst view of the project and entire codebase.
edit: Then there's waterfall vs agile vs continuous evolution. Sometimes you know everything you need up front. Small part of my world. My normal world is "the more you give them, the more they want" - a continuously evolving large codebase. Continual change means refactoring and reviewing that you are still writing effectively instead of creating a nice bowl of spaghetti. Anyone can make spaghetti but nicely layered lasagna is more work!
modified 28-Dec-19 10:05am.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you mean. This is my favorite reply, as you were very thorough.
This despite the fact that I've evaluated a lot of what you wrote and it's covered ground for me- I used to be a software architect by trade after I was strictly a developer. Still I appreciate the time and effort, and so I'm sure do people visiting the thread.  Thank you for this.
I have run into some maintenance issues, but not insurmountable. I don't like how the code will look to me in a month, and so some refactoring is in order, but I haven't figured out which way to go with it.
A lot of times when I need ideas, I tend to go my own way, having received inspiration from others nonetheless. Asking helps "unblock" me, so don't worry about not being able to address my code without seeing it. I appreciate the input.
I think this is still best procedural, but maybe some of the arguments I pass could be encapsulated as structs or even classes. The other option is to go full bore and make a complete and sensible model out of the whole thing but this requires a lot of code I'll never use, despite being one of my go to techniques. For example I developed a document object model for my regular expressions even though I didn't absolutely need it. It was useful in some cases though. I don't believe that to be true of this particular bit of the code generation process.
Either that, or i haven't landed on the Right Way(TM) to do this and that's why I'm running into anti-patterns. Maybe there's a concise model I just haven't figured out.
I'm great at modeling though. It's one reason I became an architect - the ability to think in several levels of abstraction and model complicated systems even in my head. However, I'd be a fool to think I was the smartest person in any given room, so it's always possible someone more clever than me came up with A Better Way(TM)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
My thought was you were an experienced programmer Your question style caught my eye because it was something I might write. I don't ask highly technical questions; you can always find those answers in manuals, wikis, or blogs.
You know, we all have those gremlins sitting on our shoulders: "Do this, it is the way of the future", "Don't do that, it's bad form". Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Sgt. Pepper taught...
... Oh, never mind.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I remember about that show is Sgt. (Pepper) Anderson pointing out that a masked bank robber was a woman, because she adjusted her bra strap.
Something that male detectives obviously wouldn't have noticed in a million years...
Yes, I was a writing critic right from when I was a tiny tot.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't make a big impression on me either, don't remember a thing 
|
|
|
|
|
Went to town and we were offered free oil dumplings and a cup of hot coco!
Happy Christmas everyone 
Oliebol - Wikipedia[^]
modified 25-Dec-19 2:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
That's totally unfair! I still have a half of a day to work here... 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
you poor so and so
and I bet you don't even have oil dumplings over there
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: I'm not sure what oil dumplings are
Think of doughnuts: Oliebol - Wikipedia[^] and you won't be far wrong.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: doughnuts
Are those fancy donuts?
|
|
|
|
|
No, they are just correctly spelled ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
