On Feb 27, 2013 4:31 AM, "Michael Foord" <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2013, at 11:00, David Beazley <d...@dabeaz.com> wrote: > > >> > >> From: Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> > >> > >> I'll be the first one to admit that pycparser is almost certainly not > >> generally useful enough to be exposed in the stdlib. So just using it as an > >> implementation detail is absolutely fine. PLY is a more interesting > >> question, however, since PLY is somewhat more generally useful. That said, > >> I see all this as implementation details that shouldn't distract us from > >> the main point of whether cffi should be added. > >> > > > > Regarding the inclusion of PLY or some subcomponent of it in the standard library, it's not an entirely crazy idea in my opinion. > > +1 PLY is capable and well tried-and-tested. We used it in Resolver One to implement a pretty large grammar and it is (in my opinion) best of breed in the Python parser generator world. Being stable and widely used, with an "available maintainer", makes it an ideal candidate for standard library inclusion.
Is this still on the table? -eric
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
