On 11/04/2013 06:48 AM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Timothee Cour
> <thelastmamm...@gmail.com <mailto:thelastmamm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Philippe Sigaud
> <philippe.sig...@gmail.com <mailto:philippe.sig...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>
> My current plan is to write different engines, and letting
> either the user select them at compile-time, or to have the
> parser decide which one to use, depending on the grammar. I'm
> pretty sure the 'Type 3' parts of a grammar (regular
> expressions) could be bone by using std.regex, for example.
>
>
> even lexing can't be done with regex, eg nesting comments : /+ ... +/
> Also, although it may seem cleaner at first to combine lexing and
> parsing in 1 big grammar (as done in pegged), it usually is faster
> do feed a (separate) lexer output into parser.
>
>
> Lexing, yes. I was imprecise: even in a context-free grammar, some
> rules are regular and could use std.regex (the ct part) as the
> underlying engine, just for that rule.
Lexing can not be done with regex. Think myArray[1. ] ! What is next a
dot or a number.
