Hi All On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 12:38 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tuesday 22 Mar 2011 00:10:49 David Nicol wrote: > > 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? > > It's not me who suggested to reimplement the parser - it's something that Ron > (Savage) wanted. I just blogged about the fact that I'd like someone to > actively maintain Graph-Easy instead of me: > > http://community.livejournal.com/shlomif_tech/57021.html
Yes, it's true. The idea of a re-implementation was definitely mine, but where the discussion will lead, I just don't know. -- Ron Savage http://savage.net.au/ Ph: 0421 920 622
