Alan Manuel Gloria: > I pretty much learned parsing from Parsec, so I'm actually more > familiar with Parsec than with the standard parsing syntax in books.
Yes, but we have to explain it to *others*. That's an unusual road to learn parsing!! My expectation is that most readers will know standard parsing notation, not Parsec's. I'd also guess (though this is far less certain to me) that many readers won't know Haskell. Haskell's lazy evaluation is *really* different from Scheme and ML's eager evaluation, even though they can all be used as functional languages. I've also found that there may be a future work-related reason for me to learn ANTLR, which is another reason (for me) to try using it. I think I'll try a "stupid stub" grammar with ANTLR v3 and see what I learn about it. Sometimes a little experiment teaches more than anything else. Basically, I'll just try a few rules (not trying to process the whole thing or complicated parts) & see if I can get it to run. > we can't use a preprocessor since we are "supposed" to use only flat > character streams provided by Scheme. I think we can express it at a higher level in the BNF that makes it *appear* to be a preprocessor, and then, in a hand-written recursive descent parser, optimize that away. I already have some ideas of how to do that. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
