On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> What do you think would be gained by making it a macro? From my > perspective, a macro is essentially just a string that is being processed > by the Clojure reader (and thus subject to its constraints). If the > grammar were expressed in the way you propose, is it any easier to build up > a grammar programmatically? Is it any easier to compose grammars? If > anything, I think it might be harder. > > I should also point out, for anyone who hasn't had a chance to read through the tutorial, that instaparse does include a combinator interface that lets you build the parsers entirely through functions. The way I look at it is that if you're going for human writing and readability, it's hard to beat strings (or reading from a resource file), and if you're going for a grammar that will be generated by a program, it's hard to beat functions. So both are included. But targeting some sort of functional-ish looking thing that doesn't look quite right and doesn't compose effectively -- that doesn't seem to serve either purpose well. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
