Hello Matthew,
that is interesting news. Do you have some documentation or reference to
provide regarding the algorithm you use to handle left recursion ? Is it a
new algorithm of your making ? Also, is the indirect recursion you mention
provably handled or did you just assert on some archetypal cases ? I read
in your documentation you will release the algorithm later on, if so,
please notify us (or me) here ! I am interested in seeing how the general
problem of general recursion patterns can be solved efficiently while
retaining the essence of the PEG formalism. Thanks,
Alex
2013/8/12 Matthew Goode <matt...@scratchy.org.nz>
> Hello, I'm pretty much ready to release a parser generator I've been
> working on for a while. It is a packrat inspired parser (though can avoid
> memorising), that handles left recursion indirectly and directly, and takes
> into account option order with left recursion. So, the following
>
> e = { e "+" e } | {e "*" e } | NUMBER
>
> will parse "1+2*3+4" as (1+((2*3)+4) (if specified correctly - see
> documentation). This seems to work okay with indirect recursion as well,
> and with or without memorisation. It does use a tokenisation step, because
> I liked that better, but that may change in future versions. It also has
> extensions to PEG that allow it to match things like Fibonacci sequences...
>
> It can be found at
> http://scratchy.org.nz/austen.**php<http://scratchy.org.nz/austen.php>
>
> (It is still a work in a progress, but for the most part is a well matured
> tool - I've been working on and using it for years).
>
> Matthew
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> PEG mailing list
> PEG@lists.csail.mit.edu
> https://lists.csail.mit.edu/**mailman/listinfo/peg<https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/peg>
>
_______________________________________________
PEG mailing list
PEG@lists.csail.mit.edu
https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/peg
