Nam,
I'm not so sure that a "universal parsing library" is possible for the stdlib.
I think one way you could find out what the requirements are is to refactor at
least 2
of the existing stdlib modules that you have identified as needing a better
parser.
Did you find that you could use the
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:59 AM Christopher Barker
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:02 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> I would expect that the only reasonable way of getting a parsing
>> library in the stdlib would be to propose an established one from PyPI
>> to be moved into the stdlib
>
>
>
@DavidMertz
Each one of them takes a dramatically different approach to the defining a
grammar
they work more towards implementing well known standards like the BNF. well
internally they might work different to parse etc.
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
Mauritius
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:02 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> I would expect that the only reasonable way of getting a parsing
> library in the stdlib would be to propose an established one from PyPI
> to be moved into the stdlib
Absolutely -- unlike some proposals, a stand-alone parsing lib could very
On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 02:54, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Back to my original goal, I've gathered that there is some interest in having
> a more general parser library in the stdlib. "Some", but not "much". Should I
> start out with a straw proposal so that we can hash it out further?
I would expect
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:13 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/1/2019 1:14 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > We do have a parser generator in the standard library:
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/master/Lib/lib2to3/pgen2
>
> It is effectively undocumented and by inference discouraged from
On 4/1/2019 1:14 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
We do have a parser generator in the standard library:
https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/master/Lib/lib2to3/pgen2
It is effectively undocumented and by inference discouraged from use.
The entry for lib2to3 in the 2to3 doc:
Sure! Same examples mentioned in Victor's
https://vstinner.github.io/tag/security.html could have been fixed by
having a more proper parser. This one that I helped author was also a
parsing issue.
https://python-security.readthedocs.io/vuln/bpo-30500_urllib_connects_to_a_wrong_host.html
Thanks
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:17 PM Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Installing a package out of stdlib does not solve the problem that motivated
> this thread. The libraries included in the stdlib can't use those parsers.
Can you be more specific about exactly which code in the stdlib you
think should be
David Mertz writes:
> OK, I'll acknowledge my comment might have overstated the bar to overcome.
> A parser added to the standard library doesn't need to be perfect for
> everyone. But adding to stdlib *does* provide a kind of endorsement of the
> right default way to go about things.
David Mertz writes:
> While I can imagine proposing one for inclusion in the standard
> library, you'd have to choose one (or write a new one) and explain
> why that one is better for everyone (or at least a better starting
> point) than all the others are.
In principle, no, one just needs
Stack-based LL(1) push down automata can be implemented by hand, indeed isn’t
that that a textmateLanguage file is? There’s also the option of using Iro to
generate a tmLanguage.
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
We do have a parser generator in the standard library:
https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/master/Lib/lib2to3/pgen2
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:17 PM Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:13 PM David Mertz wrote:
>
>> I just found this nice summary. It's not complete, but it looks
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:13 PM David Mertz wrote:
> I just found this nice summary. It's not complete, but it looks well
> written. https://tomassetti.me/parsing-in-python/
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 3:09 PM David Mertz wrote:
>
>> There are about a half dozen widely used parsing libraries for
I just found this nice summary. It's not complete, but it looks well
written. https://tomassetti.me/parsing-in-python/
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 3:09 PM David Mertz wrote:
> There are about a half dozen widely used parsing libraries for Python.
> Each one of them takes a dramatically different
What does it mean to be a universal parser? In my mind, to be universal you
should be able to parse anything, so you'd need something as versatile as
any Turing language, so one could stick with the one we already have
(Python). I'm vaguely aware of levels of grammar (regular, context-free?,
Hello list,
What do you think of a universal parsing library in the stdlib mainly for
use by other libraries in the stdlib?
Through out the years we have had many issues with protocol parsing. Some
have even introduced security bugs. The main cause of these issues is the
use of simple regular
17 matches
Mail list logo
