On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Cev Ing <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Freitag, 20. November 2015 10:10:20 UTC+1 schrieb rns: >> >> This doc section -- >> >> https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/Marpa-R2/pod/Scanless/DSL.pod#L0-G1-and-lexemes >> -- has a good writeup. >> >> > Sorry I should have read this more carefully. > > But when the difference between a L0 rule and a G1 rule is, that the G1 > rule can have semantics, while the L0 can not, then the statement from the > IRC, that the RHS of a rule must not contain quantifiers, because only this > makes it ease to express the semantics, does not apply to my original > question. Because I asked about a L0 rule, which can not have any semantics > one needs to define. > Fair point; however, allowing bare quantified charclasses in L0 and disallowing them in G1 would make the design less consistent IMO.
With the current design, because L0 and G1 syntax is the same, you can change a rule from L0 to G1 and back as easy as changing ~ to ::= and back provided that you got the lexemes right -- I personally found that helpful more often than not. > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
