[ragel-users] Re: 6.1 and further changes to the language

Manoj Rajagopalan ma... at nanorex.com
Thu Feb 14 23:32:18 UTC 2008

Now that I understand it, it's a great idea! I just switched to using a 
different approach because Ragel lacked this feature.

-- Manoj

Adrian Thurston wrote:
> Hi Wncent, here's an example:
> main := |*
>    'foo' %{ /*leaving action*/ } => { /*scanner pattern action*/ };
> *|;
> -Adrian
> On Feb 14, 3:13 pm, Wincent Colaiuta <w... at wincent.com> wrote:
>> El 14/2/2008, a las 18:37, Adrian Thurston escribió:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm planning a 6.1 release with further changes to the language that
>>> will break backwards compatibility.
>>> When scanners were first made there was no consideration to getting
>>> leaving actions at the end of a scanner pattern to execute. Now it
>>> stands out to me as an inconsistency that needs to be fixed.
>>> I don't expect people to embed a leaving action right before the
>>> pattern
>>> action is specified. You should still use the scanner action instead.
>> Can you clarify what you mean by "scanner action"? Just to make sure I
>> understand what you're saying here.
>>> The problem is with machine definitions used at the end of a scanner
>>> pattern that have leaving actions inside. These may do some cleanup or
>>> other final processing at the end of a machine definition and should
>>> be
>>> executed.
>> Cheers,
>> Wincent
> > 

More information about the ragel-users mailing list