>>>>> "AR" == Adam Russell <[email protected]> writes:
AR> The Gnaw talk got me thinking about how I solve many of my own AR> parsing problems. I have typically not gone the "deep" route of AR> using something like Parse::RecDescent because it seems like AR> overkill from what I typically do and the files I typically parse AR> are usually such an unpredictable mess that it almost seems easier AR> to not craft a grammar. Does this make sense? Is there an AR> acknowledged tipping point where it makes sense to implement a AR> formal grammar rather than gentle poking with regexes? What is AR> it? as you said it is hard to tell. sometimes it takes a sharp eye to see the regularities in an input stream so you can define a grammar. other times you need ad hoc regexes to parse it. i have been in both camps and it is just a problem you have to address with each case. thanx, uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [email protected] -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html --------- --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com --------- _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
