"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message news:ia01q3$1i1...@digitalmars.com... > "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message > news:i9vn3l$bd...@digitalmars.com... >> Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> What's wrong with regexes? >> >> They don't handle recursion. > > Neither do plain-old strings. But regexes will get you farther than plain > strings before needing to resort to customized lexing. > > But I'm a big data-driven fan anyway. If you're not than I can see why it > wouldn't seem as appealing as it does to me. > > In any case, if I have a chance I might see about adapting my Goldie ( > www.dsource.org/projects/goldie ) library to more Phobos-friendly > requirements. It's already a fully-usable lexer/parser (and the > lexer/parser parts can be used independantly), with a complete grammar > description language and I already have misc related tools written. And > it's mostly working on D2 already (just need the next DMD because it has a > fix for a bug that's a breaker for one of the tools). So if I can get it > into a state more suitable for Phobos then that might end up putting > things ahead of where they would be if someone just started from scratch. > The initial versions might not be completely Phobos-ified, but it could > definitely get there (especially if I had some guidance from people with > more Phobos2 experience than me). Would Walter & co be interested in this? > If not, I won't bother, but if so, then I may give it a shot. >
And FWIW, I was already thnking about making some improvements to Goldie's API enyway.
