On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM, <dhu...@hudes.org> wrote:
> An interesting concept but describing the syntax as a grammar is not the > same as an FSA. The FSA is part of the parser and lexer. > I disagree. "State Machine" is a powerful abstraction that is useful in many places. > The thing about parsing and Perl is that your lexer can be based on > regular expressions which Perl of course understands itself. Regardless, > the first step is to come up with a formal grammar. The RHS of the > productions are calls to Graph::Easy. > Regular expressions describe state machines, for instance. Regex is a descriptive (opposed to procedural) language. So is Graph::Easy. At this time, we have a working parser for Graph::Easy regardless of how > it was created. While a formal grammar is wonderful for documenting that > language, why are we looking at replacing the parser in the first place? > what size /complexity input is causing such a performance problem? > Or is that new features for the language are desired and it is difficult > to implement them in the existing system? > Yes, yes! Perhaps Shlomi will explain exactly what the itch is that he's scratching? I'm just guessing: does the existing Graph::Easy have issues with mixed-direction unicode? -- simple interpolable credential obfuscator: perl -ple 's/(.)/sprintf "\\%03o",ord $1/ge;'
