David Beazley wrote:
> I haven't really spent much time thinking about this, but the
> PLY-3.0 release might make it significantly easier to explore
> such possibilities--namely because I refactored the yacc
> internals to make different parts of it more self-contained.
> It might be possible to build this kind of functionality into
> an intermediate step.
>
> I suppose one could revisit the question of rules that allow
> repeats (e.g., TOKEN*) as well. Hmmm. Interesting.
>
Of course, repetition is the next logical step. It can return a list
of subproductions (i.e. p[N] where N is the index of a subproduction
with * is a list of length 0, 1 or more).
This together with ? would considerably reduce the amount of
boilerplate code currently required for complex PLY grammars.
Eli
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ply-hack" 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/ply-hack?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
