I've been thinking about removing the SLR parsing option from PLY and just
supporting LALR(1). Does anyone have any particular thoughts about this?
Just as a couple of notes on this:
1. LALR(1) has been the default method in PLY for some time.
2. The underlying parsing engine is identical (the same code is used for both).
3. Generating the LALR(1) tables only takes about 30% longer than SLR
tables (in earlier PLY 1.x releases, it took *much* longer).
4. SLR is not as powerful and anything that used SLR previously,
will work under LALR(1).
Mainly, I'm just looking for some code clean-up opportunities.
Cheers,
Dave'
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ply-hack" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ply-hack?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
