"Ara.T.Howard" <ahoward / fattire.ngdc.noaa.gov> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403010952220.2865-100000 / fattire.ngdc.noaa.gov>...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Charles Comstock wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> >   Here we run into a bunch of problems with translation.  I will start
> >   thinking of a nice way to embed this in the ruby syntax, as I don't really
> >   think that much of the Perl style syntax.  While the inheritence 
> > portion MAY be possible to implement in the current ruby syntax, other parts
> > would definitely need a custom regex engine, which probably sacrifices speed
> > amoung other things.
> 
> sound like an o.k. idea, but what advantage would it have over racc, which is
> already distributed with ruby?  i must say the value of dynamically creating
> parsers seems like it would not be too heavily used - just making a good
> parser is hard enough and i would think that any grammars simple enough to
> generate parsers for on the fly would be simply enough to parse by hand.
> considering that, i perfer the approach of racc which will generate a static
> parser using a very ruby-esc syntax.
> 
> -a

FWIW, I am having a love affair w/ boost::spirit.  I use it _all_ the
time.  Planning a proper grammar for even trivial things like
command-line arguments and then concisely parsing them w/ spirit gives
me a warm fuzzy feeling.  I would never ever ever use the traditional
parser generators (or their clones) for such tasks, though (nevermind
that I prefer writing right-recursive grammars).  Spirit's style is
very much tied to the language for which it was written, but I still
think that it is a good role-model.