In my working version, the meta-grammar now runs LATM, with no issues.
This change probably won't make it into the next indexed release, but
will make it into the one after.
The difference between changing the default for the meta-grammar (and
therefore for the parsing of all SLIF DSL) and changing the general
default, is that the meta-grammar is a specific grammar, so I know how
lexing works on it and can think out the issues. It also has a large
test suite. Changing the general default is more problematic.
To be clear, the difference here is changing the parsing of the SLIF DSL
to be LATM and changing the parsing of all the grammars described by
that DSL. Changing the SLIF's meta-grammar is changing the default for
one grammar whose implementation I control. That I will do. Changing
the parsing of all of the grammars described by the SLIF DSL's means
changing the way grammars which I do not know of, and whose
implementation I do not control, are parsed. That's considerably more
dangerous, and I don't think I'll do it.
As mentioned, changing to LATM means that some grammars which failed to
parse in the past, now will parse. This sounds at worst harmless, and
it usually is, in fact, no worse than harmless. But there are cases
where you *want* the grammar to fail, so there actually is some risk
involved in silently changing failed parses to successful ones. Hence
my caution.
-- jeffrey
On 02/15/2014 11:17 AM, Ruslan Shvedov wrote:
Finally, something I'm not sure about: a developer version with meta
grammar converted to forgiving to let people test against it and see
if and how exactly it is (in)compatible.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa
parser" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
