On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Patrick Walton <pwal...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I have an untested grammar for Rust here, > with the token regexes not yet filled in: > > https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5457664 > > yapps2 reports that this grammar is LL(1). > > Note that the refactorings I made resulted in a grammar which isn't that > great for tooling or parsing in many places. In particular the contortions > needed to make `self_ty_and_maybenamed_args` result in an AST that combines > the self type and the type of the first argument together in bizarre ways. > > Since this is untested, I'm sure there are bugs, but it's probably a good > sign that I could at least refactor the grammar to what I think is LL(1).
This is really cool, but I'm sort of confused about the apparent multiple ongoing efforts toward having a precise and machine-readable Rust grammar. Should we consider one of these the "real" grammar? Lindsey _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
