I was going to stop the PEG series on my blog at part 3, but given the ongoing churn around this topic, I'm considering writing part 4 to address the left-recursion issue. Given that there is evidently a commonly-occurring challenge in building parse-trees for left-recursive infix operators, perhaps it would be valuable to demonstrate techniques for handling that case in "raw" PEG. I'm not sure I want to go with automatic removal/rewriting, but (like Roman) I see value in considering parse-tree creation as (at least conceptually) separate from sequence recognition.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Laurence Tratt <lau...@tratt.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:26:14AM -0700, Terence Parr wrote: > > Dear Terence, > >> Hi. Yep, in the end, it was straightforward to convert any immediate left >> recursion as a side effect of looking for precedence-disambiguated >> expressions and the like. > > Thanks for the information - I need to get my head around a couple of the > details, but it definitely sounds good! > > Yours, > > > Laurie > -- > http://tratt.net/laurie/ -- Personal > http://fetegeo.org/ -- Free text geocoding > http://convergepl.org/ -- The Converge programming language > > _______________________________________________ > PEG mailing list > PEG@lists.csail.mit.edu > https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/peg > _______________________________________________ PEG mailing list PEG@lists.csail.mit.edu https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/peg
