On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:46:51PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: > As for the original question, I think that the Perl 6 grammar will
: > be a much better example for how to parse other languages than a
: > Perl 5 grammar would be, since one of the underlying design currents
: > from the beginning has been that Perl 6 had to be a language that
: > was amenable to parsing by Perl 6 rules (with a little help from a
: > bottom-up operator-precedence expression parser.)
: Once Patrick is done with PGE, will it be able to parse Perl5? If so,
: why aren't we focusing on that?

Sure, but if you want to parse it *correctly* and know what it actually
means, I estimate it'll take about 20 times as much effort as you're
thinking it will, because there are an incredible number of foibles
in the Perl 5 parser.  Otherwise you might as well just use perl5:PPI.

I'm not trying to malign the PPI approach here.  It works most of
the time, and when it works, it works fine.  I don't doubt that it
will produce better translations of certain programs, especially
source-filtered programs where the filtering can essentially be
ignored.  But with the "PPD" approach I'm aiming first for a correct
semantic translation and secondarily for a close syntactic translation,
so what you'll get out of my approach is a post-source-filtered
translation that is likelier to work but less likely to be readable.
For a known source filter we can perhaps then refactor that back to
a more readable form.

In the long run these different approaches will complement each other,
and help us better understand each approach's weaknesses and strengths.
It's just that I have to take the PPD approach because no one else
is simultaneously knowledgable enough and nutty enough to attempt
it and succeed.  (Whether I am myself knowledgable enough and nutty
enough to succeed is yet to be decided.  Recent signs are encouraging,
especially in the latter department.)


Reply via email to