On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Graydon Hoare <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13-04-24 11:39 PM, Lindsey Kuper wrote: >> This is really cool, but I'm sort of confused about the apparent >> multiple ongoing efforts toward having a precise and machine-readable >> Rust grammar. Should we consider one of these the "real" grammar? > > > This is a translation of the one John just finished (which was for antlr4, a > very flexible "any LL(k)" grammar) into input for yapps2, which (as far as I > know) has the distinguishing features of being-in-python and > being-able-to-tell-us-about-LL(1)-conflicts. I believe it's still the "same" > grammar as John did, just massaged to target a different tool. At some point > I'd like a library that can consume/emit the 97 different equivalent > dialects of EBNF used by different tools, so we can do this sort of exercise > a little more readily. > > In any case that is (as far as I know) the only multiplicity of grammars > floating about. The previous attempt here was one I made, targeting > llnextgen, but it was abandoned mid-way-through (the results of which are > currently on display in the reference manual). > > Are there others?
OK, thanks for explaining! (By "multiple" I just meant "two". I'm not aware of others.) Lindsey _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
