[ragel-users] Why not prepend a prefix to variables used by ragel?

[Daniel Beecham]

I don’t find the variable names to particularly confusing - we usually have
a function

int something_parse(struct something_parser_s * parser, char * buf, int
buf_len) {
  char * p = buf;
  char * pe = buf + buf_len;
  %%write exec;
}

Which is pretty easy to read. The cs variable is stored in the structure,
which gives us partial reads for free; so a rg_ prefix isn’t very necessary
there either. (parser->cs reads like “parsers current state”, which is good
enough I think).

If you feel strongly about it, variable can solve your readability problems.

lör 23 feb. 2019 kl. 13:12 skrev Peng Yu <pengyu.ut at gmail.com>:

> This can be easily solved but adding a command line option to enable such
> prefixes and the date the prefixes will be enforced (say in 3 years). So
> people can have time to migrate their ragel code. This kind of things has
> been done all the time. I don’t think it should be an excuse not make the
> variable name more readable. “access” can solve the readability problem,
> but it also uses an extra structure which changes the meaning of the code.
> I will check “variable” later.
>
> BTW, how many uses of ragel anyway? It seems to have a far less user base
> than flex. My impression is that people uses it because it can offer
> something flex does not offer. However, flex can already solve a lot of
> lexing problems. So there will be much less users use ragel than flex. This
> can be shown by the numbers of questions on stack overflow and the numbers
> of projects on github.
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:52 AM Adrian Thurston <thurston at colm.net> wrote:
>
>> You can use the variable and access statements (section 5 of the
>> manual).
>>
>> Changing the default behaviour at this point would break every ragel
>> program out there and that's not something I'm interested in doing.
>>
>> On 2019-02-22 21:23, Peng Yu wrote:
>> > The variables mentioned in section 5.1 "Variables Used by Ragel"
>> > manual are very much like common names. It will be confusing to look
>> > at ragel code written in this way. Why not consider adding a prefix,
>> > e.g., rg_, to them to make it less confusing? Thanks.
>> >
>> > - cs
>> > - p
>> > - ...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ragel-users mailing list
>> ragel-users at colm.net
>> http://www.colm.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peng
> _______________________________________________
> ragel-users mailing list
> ragel-users at colm.net
> http://www.colm.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.colm.net/pipermail/ragel-users/attachments/20190223/33ece25c/attachment-0001.html>