Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight

Re: Parse::RecDescent

by princepawn (Parson)
on Apr 23, 2001 at 21:35 UTC ( #74791=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Parse::RecDescent

Parse::RecDescent has its place, but even its author opted for YAPP when doing the parsing for Lingua::Romana::Perligata for reasons discussed in last year's Perl 5 Conference.

Top-down parsing is good for changing the overall structure of parse phrasing. Bottom up makes hardcore tokenizing easier, and that's why Damian opted for a module other than even his own in this case.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Parse::RecDescent
by Masem (Monsignor) on Apr 24, 2001 at 02:07 UTC
    There are still places where you'd want to use Parse::RecDescent over YAPP, based on what I've looked into the latter, a couple which concern me for a project I'm working on; first, you cannot match code blocks if the outside language is not pure perl, unless you insert the entire perl grammar tree within your recipe. This is not a fun prospect. Secondly, YAPP requires you to work with outside tools to generate .pm files that basically become your parser; this doesn't allow for dynamically changing rules or easily creating new parser sets on the fly.

    Mind you, this latter condition is probably a rarity in terms of programmers needs; most programs that use such parsers will have a fixed grammer where the improved reliability of YAPP will play out much better. (Maybe I'll play with that as well and put up a comparible review).

    Dr. Michael K. Neylon - || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://74791]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (4)
As of 2022-08-14 11:42 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found