28-Jan-2013 00:45, Philippe Sigaud пишет:
[snip]
AFAICT, one interesting consequence is the ability to have composition
of grammars, which I sure have with Pegged. But maybe it's not related
that much, that's not something I stopped to think about.
In any case, grammar composition is something I've learnt to like quite a
lot.
You can still have composability of grammars. In fact I'd define a couple of
a less powerful but better optimized variations if I were you.
Yes, getting an automaton to deal with the regular part would be good.
But then, there already is std.regex ;)
Reminds me to tweak/refactor/optimize CT-part of it.
[snip]
What I still can't get an easy answer on is: is the D grammar LR(1),
LR(0), LALR?
I *think* you can shoehorn it into any one of these: LALR(1), LL(k)+
some lookahead, LL(*) a generalization of it, or PEG. As usual you might
need semantic predicates to iron out some quirks though. We are getting
OT quick ;)
The hint is that your question is a bit faulty: by calling it "the D
grammar" do you mean the exact one listed on the website or any
equivalent that parses the same language (including the ones obtained by
simple transformations)?
--
Dmitry Olshansky
