On 13-04-25 09:16 AM, Patrick Walton wrote: > Are you concerned about the left-factoring needed to make the LL(1) > grammar work? To me that's the biggest issue: the resulting grammar is > kind of messy, and a tool that uses the LL(1) grammar is going to have a > fun time reconstructing the first argument to method signatures (for > example)...
Somewhat concerned. But also a bit surprised if it'd be that hard to extract; after all many rules have a "just propagate the thing found within it" semantic action in typical generated parsers. Eg. the multi-layered stack of rules for binops-with-precedence. If it's truly catastrophic for grammar users, or the docs for that m tter, I suppose we can go with "See appendix G for the LL(1) version of this rule -- in a grammar we also regularly test against the codebase -- or this LL(2) version here." -Graydon _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
