Hi Jason, > I get what you're saying about Transforms. I sensed it before and > resisted it, but now I really can't deny it. :) Come to the dark side ;)
> So, Kaspar, perhaps in the documentation you'll find a way to downplay > the context of Transforms and communicate that in Parslet, parsing and > transformations go together like lexing and parsing, no? What you just > told me would be a great start: > > Transformations are good for one thing: Getting out of the horrible > Hash/Array/Slice mixture into the realm of your own AST classes > easily. Usually, no state is associated with that operation. I am keeping track of this here: https://github.com/kschiess/parslet/issues/40 https://github.com/kschiess/parslet/issues/39 Thanks for nudging me! kaspar
