Re: Pegex Parser for Inline::C

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Sisyphus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sisyphus"
>
>
>> Been away all weekend - I'll have a look at it tonight. (More later, once
>> I've had a chance to peruse it.)
>
>
> First thing I noticed is that we now have additional dependencies of (the
> non-core modules) IO::String, IO::All, YAML::XS, Pegex and parent.

My .02: I really like the cleaner grammar of Pegex.  The "FAIL" rates
of Pegex and YAML::XS are higher than the FAIL rate of any of
Inline::C's dependencies, including Inline::C itself.  It's too bad
that CPAN install tools don't yet support enough of the
CPAN::Meta::Spec to allow (easily) for alternate dependency chains (at
least that I'm aware).  If they did, one could specify to try the
Pegex chain first, and then the Parse::Regex chain, and then the
Parse::RecDescent chain (as a last resort).

Since that's still not easy to do in any reliable fashion I just
wonder if we could come together to work on the FAILs for those
dependency modules (and on up their chains), sort of as we did with
Inline::CPP.

I'm interested in this too, because it seems like it could also be
applicable to Inline::CPP, though I'm not sure that I have the time to
learn and write the Pegex grammar for Inline::CPP at the moment.  But
still, it would be nice to have a more maintainable grammar than what
we've got for Inline::CPP currently.  I'd love to see the future bring
a larger subset of C++ to Inline::CPP's understanding.

Dave


-- 

David Oswald
[email protected]