Re: [Factor-talk] EBNF peg parser ensuring full parse

I think most EBNF uses would want to use ``parse-and-throw`` and not the current ``parse-and-ignore``, but perhaps it makes sense to define both. I would be a little concerned about word explosion also, plus discoverability / subtle bugs if both ways are defined. I like the idea of adding your

Re: [Factor-talk] EBNF peg parser ensuring full parse

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Jon Harper wrote: > > Should we add words to do this more easily ? > maybe > : parse* ( string parser -- ast remaining ) > : parse-all ( string parser -- ast ) ! throws when remaining not empty > > Maybe EBNF: can define several words ?