> [pmichaud - Thu Jul 21 02:10:03 2005]: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:25:08AM -0700, Mitchell N Charity wrote: > > PGE is currently passing all tests, but failing to run a "large" pugs > > grammar (one for p6 regexps). So I transliterated part of the grammar > > into a (failing) test. Attached. The test can grow into a full regexp > > description, and serves as a way of flagging any apparent pge problems > > encountered along the way. > > Wow, this is excellent, thanks! > > Is this test based on the rules grammar that is currently in > pugs/trunk/modules/Grammars/rx_grammar.pl? (It appears so.) > > If yes, can I propose that we go ahead and clean up that grammar > definition a bit, and then build the test off of that? (My use > of "we" here explicitly includes "me".) Some of the rules listed > in rx_grammar.pl are not as I think they should be, so it might be > productive to hammer out a better working definition for the > syntax and then build the test. > > (Plus, we may be able to use this as a good reason to get the PGE > test suite to directly read and test rx_grammar.pl, so that we don't > have to manually maintain both.) > > So, if you're in agreement, shall I post my changes to rx_grammar.pl > for discussion (to perl6-compiler)? Or should we take a different > approach? > > Thanks, > > Pm > it's been a while since this ticket was last updated. has work progressed on getting pge to compile rx_grammar.pl?
~jerry
