> On 12 Aug 2017, at 12:46, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would very much like this path. What would constitute tiny?
no idea, we need to think on it :) but I see no point in create a new (even small) parser/scanner each time we need one. At the end you have several small parsers that repeat always same process when PetitParser is good for most of our problems (and if you need to improve it. you can always load PP compiler, etc.). Esteban > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> hi, >> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 18:57, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Another step would be to get a minimal parser not relying on >>> PetitParser. >> >> Let’s think differently: why not to include a tiny PetitParser? >> Then we can think on: >> >> - pillar sintax (better than just a restricted version) >> - simplify other “small parsers” that are already on the image. >> - we provide a tool to o cool stuff (instead relying as always in regexp, >> etc.) >> >> cheers, >> Esteban > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Beauty is where we see it." > > > > >
