I would certainly benefit from reading this part 4. -Alan
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:35:31AM -0500, Dale Schumacher wrote: > 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 -- .i ma'a lo bradi ku penmi gi'e du _______________________________________________ PEG mailing list PEG@lists.csail.mit.edu https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/peg
