Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > (b) strong, dependable formalization of D's syntax.
With this premise a pegged parsing system seems to be wrong, because under pegged parsing unintended syntax ambiguities will stay undetected until some possible minor change will suddenly invalidate parts of the existing code page. In 2005 I managed to jam the syntax of D1 into a possible incomplete LALR(1)-grammar. Thereby two ambiguities where uncovered, because the parsing was then and is still done pegged. My publication of those two ambiguities did not lead to a change in the published syntax but to two meta rules on how the syntax has to be interpreted by the human reader: pegged of course. If pegged is "strong" and "dependable" enough, then LALR(1) is overkill, otherwise ..... -manfred