On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> I've tried PyParsing. I haven't tried Grako.
>
Caveat: I'm the author of Grako.
It's very easy to do complex parsing with Grako. The grammar can be
embedded in a Python string, and the compiled grammar can be used for
parsing without genera
I've tried PyParsing. I haven't tried Grako.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:54 AM Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> Have you tried PyParsing and/or Grako? They're some of my favorites (well,
> I like PLY too, but I'm thinking you wouldn't like it too much).
>
> --
> Ryan (ライアン)
> Yoko Shimomura > ryo (supercell
Have you tried PyParsing and/or Grako? They're some of my favorites (well,
I like PLY too, but I'm thinking you wouldn't like it too much).
--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura > ryo (supercell/EGOIST) > Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
http://refi64.com
On Apr 3, 2017 3:26 AM, "Neil Girdhar" wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:31 AM Mark Lawrence via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2017 02:22, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> > Same. One day, Python will have a decent parsing library.
> >
>
> Nothing here https://wiki.python.org/moin/LanguageParsing suits your
> needs?
>
No, unf
On 03/04/2017 02:22, Neil Girdhar wrote:
Same. One day, Python will have a decent parsing library.
Nothing here https://wiki.python.org/moin/LanguageParsing suits your needs?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawre
Same. One day, Python will have a decent parsing library.
On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:21:51 AM UTC-4, Stephan Houben wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> FWIW, I also strongly prefer the Verbal Expression style and consider
> "normal" regular expressions to become quickly unreadable and
> unmaintainable.
Stephan Houben writes:
> FWIW, I also strongly prefer the Verbal Expression style and consider
> "normal" regular expressions to become quickly unreadable and
> unmaintainable.
>
> Verbal Expressions are also much more composable.
So are grammars.
But REs aren't so bad or incomposable if y
On 31 March 2017 at 09:20, Stephan Houben wrote:
> FWIW, I also strongly prefer the Verbal Expression style and consider
> "normal" regular expressions to become quickly unreadable and
> unmaintainable.
Do you publish your code widely? What's the view of 3rd party users of
your code? Until this t
Hi all,
FWIW, I also strongly prefer the Verbal Expression style and consider
"normal" regular expressions to become quickly unreadable and
unmaintainable.
Verbal Expressions are also much more composable.
Stephan
2017-03-31 9:23 GMT+02:00 Stephen J. Turnbull
:
> Abe Dillon writes:
>
> > Note
Abe Dillon writes:
> Note that the entire documentation is 250 words while just the syntax
> portion of Python docs for the re module is over 3000 words.
Since Verbal Expressions (below, VEs, indicating notation) "compile"
to regular expressions (spelling out indicates the internal matching
imp
> a huge advantage of REs is that they are common to many
> languages. You can take a regex from grep to Perl to your editor to
> Python. They're not absolutely identical, of course, but the basics
> are all the same. Creating a new search language means everyone has to
> learn anew.
> ChrisA
1)
On 28 March 2017 at 01:17, Simon D. wrote:
> It would ease the use of regexps in Python
We don't really want to ease the use of regexps in Python - while
they're an incredibly useful tool in a programmer's toolkit, they're
so cryptic that they're almost inevitably a maintainability nightmare.
Ba
Abe Dillon writes:
> My 2 cents is that regular expressions are pretty un-pythonic because of
> their horrible readability. I would much rather see Python adopt something
> like Verbal Expressions (
> https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/PythonVerbalExpressions ) into the
> standard library t
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
>> I feel like that borders on a bit too wordy...
>
>
> I think the use of words instead of symbols is one of the things that makes
> Python so readable. The ternary operator is done with words:
>
> value = option1 if condition else option2
>
> r
>
> I feel like that borders on a bit too wordy...
I think the use of words instead of symbols is one of the things that makes
Python so readable. The ternary operator is done with words:
value = option1 if condition else option2
reads almost like English, while:
value = condition ? option1: o
I feel like that borders on a bit too wordy...
Personally, I'd like to see something like Felix's regular definitions:
http://felix-lang.org/share/src/web/tut/regexp_01.fdoc#Regular_definitions._h
--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura > ryo (supercell/EGOIST) > Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
http://
On Mar 29, 2017 23:31, "Abe Dillon" wrote:
My 2 cents is that regular expressions are pretty un-pythonic because of
their horrible readability. I would much rather see Python adopt something
like Verbal Expressions ( https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/
PythonVerbalExpressions ) into the standar
My 2 cents is that regular expressions are pretty un-pythonic because of
their horrible readability. I would much rather see Python adopt something
like Verbal Expressions (
https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/PythonVerbalExpressions ) into the
standard library than add special syntax support for
On 28 March 2017 at 08:54, Simon D. wrote:
> I believe that the u"" notation in Python 2.7 is defined by while
> importing the unicode_litterals module.
That's not true. The u"..." syntax is part of the language. from
future import unicode_literals is something completely different.
> Each regex
* Serhiy Storchaka [2017-03-27 18:39:19 +0300]:
> There are several regular expression libraries for Python. One of them is
> included in the stdlib, but this is not the first regular expression library
> in the stdlib and may be not the last. Particular project can choose using
> an alternative r
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Yes, but if the "in" operator is used, it would still work, because
> r"..." is a str, and "str" in "string" is meaningful.
>
> But I think a better solution will be for regex literals to be
> syntax-highlighted differently. If they're a t
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Markus Meskanen
wrote:
> While I agree with most of your arguments, surely you must be the one joking
> here? "Ugly" is obviously a matter of opinion, I personally find the
> proposed syntax more beautiful than the // used in many other languages. But
> claiming it
On Mar 28, 2017 06:08, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:17:40PM +0200, Simon D. wrote:
> The regexp string litteral could be represented by : re""
>
> It would ease the use of regexps in Python, allowing to have some regexp
> litterals, like in Perl or JavaScript.
>
> We may e
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:17:40PM +0200, Simon D. wrote:
> The regexp string litteral could be represented by : re""
>
> It would ease the use of regexps in Python, allowing to have some regexp
> litterals, like in Perl or JavaScript.
>
> We may end up with an integration like :
>
> >>> import
On 27.03.17 18:17, Simon D. wrote:
After some french discussions about this idea, I subscribed here to
suggest adding a new string litteral, for regexp, inspired by other
types like : u"", r"", b"", br"", f""…
The regexp string litteral could be represented by : re""
It would ease the use of re
Hello,
After some french discussions about this idea, I subscribed here to
suggest adding a new string litteral, for regexp, inspired by other
types like : u"", r"", b"", br"", f""…
The regexp string litteral could be represented by : re""
It would ease the use of regexps in Python, allowing to
26 matches
Mail list logo
