[pro] Is cl-yacc going to cut it?

[Daniel Weinreb]

So the next time anyone says that there aren't any
libraries for Common Lisp, we can reply that
there are so many good parser libraries that
one must compare notes to figure out which is
best for which situation.  So there, ye of little
faith!  :)

-- Dan

Scott L. Burson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Matthew D. Swank <akopa at charter.net> wrote:
>   
>> It seems (from my admittedly limited search) that this is not a common
>> modification of yacc.  Before I start bugging the maintainer about my
>> changes, I want to know: am I abusing yacc?
>>     
>
> I've had to do that kind of thing for parsing languages like Cobol
> that were designed before the advent of formal parsing theory.
>
> It is an abuse in the sense that it makes it harder to say formally
> exactly what language you're parsing, but hey, you do what you have to
> do in this business :-)
>
> My own pet parser generator project is a CL reimplementation of Adam
> Megacz' Scannerless Boolean Parser:
> http://research.cs.berkeley.edu/project/sbp/
>
> Scannerless parsing obviates the kind of games you're having to play
> by integrating the lexer into the grammar.  Boolean grammars are more
> expressive than context-free grammars.  Both of these things are cool.
>  What you don't get in this framework, though, is a proof that your
> grammar is unambiguous.
>
> My reimplementation is not far enough along to release, alas, nor do I
> really have any time to work on it.  Maybe later this year...
>
> -- Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> pro mailing list
> pro at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20110204/86887538/attachment.html>