On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:22:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff Bezanson wrote: > You know, it's interesting: it's easy to write down a grammar in > formal language that is actually ambiguous. Code is not ambiguous. >
I think this was at least part of the motivation for PEGs. They are closer to modeling the way that recursive descent parsers actually work. Another way to put it is that PEGs are designed for recognizing languages, and CFGs are designed for producing examples of languages.
