Because of this, it is worthwhile investing effort to make the DSL as intuitive and easy-to-read/modify as possible, because doing that will make the translation application: (1) user friendly, and (2) easy to document in a user manual. That DSL file is likely to be quite compact (less than 100 lines), and will be the part of the application that is visible to users. If this technique works as well for you as it has worked for me on my projects, then you will end up with your translation application being an "engine" whose behaviour is driven entirely by a configuration file that, in effect, is a DSL (domain-specific language). For example, you might use one table to provide a source URL -> destination URL mapping, and a different table to provide instructions for translating fields within messages. Also, don't feel you have to shoehorn all of your translation-based configuration into a single table. If you decide to use this technique, then obviously you will need to invent instructions to specify runtime translations rather than instructions to generate code. I have used the above technique in several projects, and each time I have invented instructions specific to the needs of the particular project.
Dotbot ruby code#
The instruction specified that code should be generated to assign.The instruction specified that no code should be generated to.
The * 1000 instruction specified that code shouldīe generated to assign the value of the expression _heartbeatInterval * 1000.
For each summary string seen, the number of unique domains it. • The instruction specified the string literal foobar This table lists the usage of
in a selection of 425K pages from Dotbot.
To assign the value returned from calling orderObj->getPrice() to the field.
The instruction specified that code should be generated.
Qwantify Disallow: / OTHER User-agent: Ruby User-agent: python-requests. Generated to assign the value of the username variable in a runtime User-agent: MJ12bot User-agent: Seobility User-agent: DotBot User-agent.
The instruction specified that code should be.
The keyword was converted to an enum, and that drove a switch statement for generating code. (If no match was found, then built-in rules were used, and if none of those applied, then no code was generated for the field.)Įach instruction was a string of the form That was tokenized to provide the keyword and the optional arguments.
Dotbot ruby generator#
If a match was found, then the value in the instruction column told the code generator what sort of code to generate. (Conveniently, Config4* provides a patternMatch() utility operation that provides this functionality.) The matching logic permitted * as a wildcard character that could match zero or more characters.
Then it examined the field_rules table line-by-line (starting from the top) to find a line in which the first column matched ".". When my code generator wanted to generate code to assign a value to a field, the code generator constructed a string of the form ".", for example, Msg3.price.
0 kommentar(er)
