Hi,
> Out of interest, how LaTeX-ish do you mean? I would hazard
> a guess that it's impossible to parse an unrestricted TeX
> file using an LR grammar (or at least no more clear than a
> hand-coded automaton) because you have to execute the macro
> expander in order to parse the file *completely* correctly.
> However, if you only mean LaTeX-ish in syntax (i.e. the
> files aren't actually TeX files) then you don't have to
> worry about TeX's elegant (by which I mean terrifying)
> \catcode mechanism and macro language!
I developed the language's syntax in tandem with the parser/lexer
so I made sure it was LR-friendly and Ulex-friendly (the verbatim
environments are the only parsing-unfriendly features). The language
looks and feels like LaTeX, but without the hairy stuff...
Incidentally, the dummy token/action trick seems to be working
fine with Menhir. Since the parser will look ahead one token,
I just have a tokenizer sitting between the lexer and the parser,
and inserting a DUMMY token into the stream after any token that
precedes a dummy action:
inline:
| (...)
| BEGIN_VERBATIM enter_verb DUMMY RAW exit_verb END_VERBATIM {...}
| (...)
enter_verb: /*empty*/ {Global.context := Global.Verbatim}
exit_verb: /*empty*/ {Global.context := Global.General}
It's not the prettiest thing in the world (and I suspect I might
still find some problem with it), but as far as lexer hacks go
it's not bad and a lot better than building a state machine.
Cheers,
Dario Teixeira
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
