You didn't ask me, but since I'm currently here and reading the list I might just give 2c to the topic.
My understanding is that a BNF-grammar is virtually impossible for Org. The org language is ambiguous and writing a context free grammar for it hence is not possible. For reference, see [1]. It deals with the topic, but with markdown instead of Org as the language. Both languages face the same issue. [1]: https://roopc.net/posts/2014/markdown-cfg/ Kindly, Gustav ________________________________________ From: Emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode-bounces+gustav=whil...@gnu.org> on behalf of David Masterson <dsmasterson92...@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 23:43 To: Tim Cross Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: Concerns about community contributor support Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > I suspect the best model for moving forward is for new features and > enhancements to be initially implemented as add on contribution packages > rather than as extensions/enhancement to the core 'org-mode' package. > Such packages, if found to be popular or useful to a large number of > org-mode users could then be considered for inclusion as part of the > main org-mode package. The nature of elisp makes this type of model very > suitable as you can modify almost any aspect of org-mode via add on > packages in a consistent and stable manner and avoid impacting the core > functionality until the extension/enhancement has matured > sufficiently. What is the current status of having a BNF (or...?) parser for Org files? In particular, the parser rules that could then be adopted by tools that use Org files on other systems (iPhone, Android, ...)? Given the availability of parser generators (bison...), this would be good for breaking into smartphones where Emacs doesn't run. -- David Masterson
