On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Matthew D. Swank <akopa@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@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro