In general, I've been very happy with PLY, especially considering how terrible most parser generators are to work with. But one thing that I've really missed with PLY is EBNF. I know, I know, its not strictly necessary. The thing is, in a language I'm writing I've got the following EBNF rule:
> index : [expr] [':' [expr]] [':' [expr]] Which properly represents a python index (array subscript). The thing is, this one EBNF rule boils down to 10 BNF rules. It gets worse - functions have several optional parts. About four. That boils down to 16 rules. And I'm thinking of making another part of function definitions optional. With EBNF, that's easy, just add brackets. But with BNF, that means double the number of rules. Any possibility of EBNF somewhere down the pipe? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
