Hi On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:04 -0700, dhu...@hudes.org wrote: > > > > One could describe the Graph::Easy format grammar as a state machine, draw > > the state machine with Graph::Easy, then implement a parser from your > > diagram, with > > Graph::Easy::StateMachine<http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/htdocs/Graph-Easy-StateMachine/Graph/Easy/StateMachine.html> > > , > > for a future Graph::Easy that is self-hosting. How cool would that be or > > what? > > > 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. > > 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. > > 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?
Best to start reading here, about maintenance. Nothing was said (in this thread?) about performance. http://community.livejournal.com/shlomif_tech/57021.html > Or is that new features for the language are desired and it is difficult > to implement them in the existing system? It's not new 'features', it's new 'humans', to do the support/maintenance. -- Ron Savage http://savage.net.au/ Ph: 0421 920 622
