Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
<abigail@foad.org> writes: >On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:56:56PM +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: >> <abigail@foad.org> writes: >> > >> >I fail to see what LALR is going to gain us on the _P_erl level. >> >> What it means it you can tell what construct means by looking at next 'symbol' >> perl5 contorts itself to be able to use byacc (which is LALR(1)) by making >> deciding what the next 'symbol' is rather a complex process in toke.c. > >Well, yes, I know what LALR parsing is. Fair enough but I thought it was worth spelling out for those that might not. > >> As a result the 'grammar' in perly.y does not really describe perl5 that well. >> >> So making perl6 LALR(1) "from the outset" would give "_P_erl" a more formal >> definition. > >But from the point of view of the language user, the Perl programmer, what >will the gain be? What will the *loss* be? An LALR(1) grammar is likely to seem more "consistent", and as I said above you will have BNF-like grammar that formally defines what is legal - some people may like that. But I don't think that Perl programmers are the main beneficiaries of the change - rather it is those of "us" that have to maintain the front end have something that is less fragile. -- Nick Ing-Simmons