Am 05.03.2014 18:10, schrieb Aditya Shah:
@Certik Thanks for replying. I think that we might be able to make quite a robust parser after all. Well I do agree that it may escape some very peculiar use cases but still according to me such a parser (and quite fully functional at that) is better than having no parser.
Sorry for chiming in very late (and I have to admit I haven't read the whole thread).
Just be warned: From the programming language design community, it's a well-known fact that people tend to underestimate the relevance of "some very peculiar use cases".
It works like this: The larger the input is, the more likely it is that one of these use cases does indeed occur. If a not-covered use case occurs only with a probability of 1% per line of input, this means a failure every 61(!) lines of input.
On parser generators: These can give you a running start, which is a good thing, but the real work tends to begin after that. The real challenge is to make that additional work flexible enough that you don't have to redo it 100% whenever the language you parse gets changed.
This all doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do; in fact better parsing support would be an overall improvement. But be aware that it might not work well enough in the end, or require too much work to work well enough.
Just so you know what you're trying :-) Regards, Jo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/53177251.2040302%40durchholz.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
