Uri Guttman wrote:
"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.
What I liked about Parse::Gnaw is that it seems to fill the middle
ground between stabbing
the input with regexes and writing a detailed grammar as per
parse::recdescent, javacc, and such like.
--
ICQ 490590026
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
