From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19134-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17642 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2004 00:33:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17633 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2004 00:33:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao11.cox.net) (68.230.240.28)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Aug 2004 00:33:44 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao11.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709)
          with ESMTP
          id <20040823003344.UPKD6461.lakermmtao11.cox.net@white>;
          Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:33:44 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Bz2mN-0003hW-00; Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:33:43 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:33:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Felix Lee <felix.1@canids.net>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)
Message-ID: <20040823003343.GC14078@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Felix Lee <felix.1@canids.net>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <20040822025527.96F5D511B4A@stray.canids>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040822025527.96F5D511B4A@stray.canids>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:55:27PM -0700, Felix Lee wrote:
> Felix Lee <felix.1@canids.net>:
> > Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>:
> > >    1. Have to write a parser. (regex, recursive decent)
> > >       BTW, I guarantee the parser will have to be updated with every
> > >       release of GDB.
> > so far, I haven't found that xml is any less work than that, and
> > it usually feels like a lot more work, but I haven't used xml for
> > anything substantial yet, so it may just be unfamiliarity.
> 
> here's some elaboration.  this is what I think about xml parsers
> today.  please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> there are two types of xml parsers, stream-based and tree-based.
> 
> using an xml stream parser is equivalent to writing a recursive
> descent parser.  the stream parser basically just handles the
> 'tokenization' aspect of parsing xml (which is complicated by
> considerations like character encoding, etc.)

This is obtuse. Using the tree representation of an XML parser is
equivalent to using the tree representation of a recursive descent
parser. 

   You do not have to write the lexer, parser, tree representation or
   lookup functions ( XPATH ) if you use XML.

   You have to write the lexer ( flex ), parser ( bison ), tree
   representation format, lookup features if you use a recursive descent
   parser.

BTW, I am writing a recursive descent parser because everyone here seems
to hate XML. Does anyone have the bison rules already written out
(sharign would be *greatly* appreciated)? Or am I the first one?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi