On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 18:17:06 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On 2012-07-05 18:32, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
My vote would be for Pegged, I guess.
As much as I'm flattered by that, my current impression is
Pegged is very
far from being performant.
As a proof-of-concept that, in D, it's possible to parse a
string and
create a parse tree at compile-time and then generate code from
this, it's
also successful. Go D!
As a parser proper, Pegged is awful :-) Nothing I'm ashamed of,
as I learn
by coding. Hey, I just received the Dragon Book (International
Edition),
I'm sure I'll learn many things in there.
So, if anyone is willing to change the code generated by
Pegged, I'm game.
The results you showed me on keyword parsing are very
interesting!
But, my impression is that the need for a 'D'-only parser and
lexer is far
greater and much more imediate that the need for a parser
generator. All
the reasons advanced upthread ask for a D parser, not a generic
generator.
Parser generators are for those of us interested in having DSLs
or macros
in D.
So Pegged or any other generator should *not* get the community
focus right
now.
I'm sure it can generate **much** faster code. I'm going to focus
on its part that generates D parser (i.e., to make it
significantly faster and able to efficiently parse-as-you-type).
Actually, I'm sure it will be able to beat any other parser with
respect to performance. :)
1. So my plan is the following: invite whoever would want to help.
2. Prove my claims above in practice. :-)))))
