Yes, I believe it does :-) Thanks, Attila.
On 2010.05.26., at 22:38, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > 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.
