All the aforementioned Ruby implementations have hand-written lexers, I believe. Perhaps that answers the question right there?
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Attila Szegedi <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, it's just that most software running under the term "parser generator" > today are in fact combined lexer/parser generators, and usually don't allow > for a situation where arbitrary new tokens can be introduced by the text > being analyzed (which is the case with both examples I gave). I was thinking > about this (Ruby parsing) some time ago and concluded that you'd most likely > end up with a hand-patched lexer, as I haven't seen this feature in any of > the ready-made solutions I know (there might be some that I don't know, > naturally). > > Attila. > > On 2010.05.26., at 16:02, John Cowan wrote: > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Attila Szegedi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Out of professional curiosity: how do you implement >>> 1. Ruby's here docs >>> 2. Ruby's %Q, %q, %x and %r constructs >>> with any LL(k) or LALR parser generator's grammar language? >> >> That's what lexers are for. >> >> -- >> GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at >> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "JVM Languages" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
