anon luker wrote:

>"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.
>
>  
>
Is the importance the integration with the language or the fact that you 
can create parsers dynamically? I'm aiming for the latter with Ruby but 
the grammars can either be written in a string (in the Rockit grammar 
format) or constructed directly with the Grammar classes. I haven't 
checked out the Perl6 stuff but my impression is that the the original 
poster thinks the integration into the host language is the most 
important thing. Can someone clarify?

/Robert