> You could make a Racket reader that did this. Or you can find some of the
> interesting s-expression regular expression languages (I think Olin Shivers
> did one). Or just not use regexps so much
> ("http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247”).
When telling someone to avoid something useful, it is nice to also point to a
superior replacement. I agree that many uses of regular expressions could be
better served by something more robust, but what does Racket have to offer in
this department?
The first thing that comes to my mind is Stephen Chang’s parsack[1], a Racket
implementation of Haskell’s parsec. There’s also Danny Yoo’s ragg[2] for
parsing grammars described with extended BNF. I’ve also found a GLL[3]
“implementation” of sorts, which looks very interesting, but isn’t a package
and seems to present itself mostly as a tutorial. Finally, there’s the old
parser-tools[4] package, but that’s pretty heavyweight.
For a system with such a powerful ability to extend the language in arbitrary
ways, it seems odd that Racket would provide so few tools for parsing simple
text.
[1]: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/parsack/index.html
[2]: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/ragg/index.html
[3]: https://github.com/epsil/gll
[4]: http://docs.racket-lang.org/parser-tools/index.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
