>echo “var x = 3;”|./parse_test
{“token” : “LC”, “start_pos” : [0, 0], “end_pos” : [1, 10], “arity” : -1, “expr_list” : [{"token" : "VAR", "start_pos" : [1, 0], “end_pos” : [1, 5], “arity” : -1, “expr_list” : [{"token" : "NAME", "start_pos" : [1, 4], “end_pos” : [1, 5], “arity” : “name”, “value” : “x”, “expr” : {“token” : “NUMBER”, “start_pos” : [1, 8], “end_pos” : [1, 9], “arity” : 0}}]}]}

I completely agree on staying the hell away from C/C++

Is your work available somewhere?

I’ve spent some time poking at the JavaScript rewriting stuff. Basically, I updated the parser you linked to in the previous post to handle JS1.7 and made it emit a JSON representation of the raw AST. (It may end up being a good idea to rewrite the whole thing, since there are some edge cases that may run the risk of making the current hack a bowl of spaghetti.)

Some preliminary testing with traversing the JSON AST using Python look promising. There are some issues with exact source positions for e.g. function arguments, but I figure it’s possible to further annotate the AST in a second pass for those regions. Right now I’m leaning towards using Python for the first pass, and have that emit a .js file with predetermined fields (e.g. scope information, preprocessor line no. offsets, the final AST etc.) and use that file as the input to DeHydra. Mostly because doing all that in C/C++ seems to be a lot of unnecessary work which is easily accomplished in Python.