[Sending it again to haskell-cafe]
On 10/18/05, Tom Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing a parser for a big, ugly, standard language and I need to
decide between using either Happy or Parsec.
I wrote a parser for a big, ugly, non-standard language - Transact-SQL
from MSSQL.
I
I am writing a parser for a big, ugly, standard language and I need to
decide between using either Happy or Parsec.
I currently have a priliminary LALR(1) grammar, so a port to Happy would
be relatively easy. But, I'm wondering if life would be easier if I
chose Parsec's combinator parsing
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Hawkins wrote:
However, I have a few concerns with Parsec. First is performance; what
factor of slow-down should I expect? Second is bug prevention. I don't have
much experience writing LL(n) grammars, so how easy is it to introduce bugs
in a Parsec grammar? Even
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Philippa Cowderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you've got a decent chunk of test data or don't mind generating
it with QuickCheck odds are you can spot it reasonably quickly when
it happens.
When I write a parser I usually also write a pretty-printer (or
ugly-printer) plus
