[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] mlorg : yet another parser for org-mode (Written in OCaml contai

From: Simon Castellan
Subject: Re: [O] mlorg : yet another parser for org-mode (Written in OCaml contained in org-mode files)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:37:30 -0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On lun. 27/févr. (09:52), Eric Schulte wrote:
> Simon Castellan <address@hidden> writes:
> > On lun. 27/févr. (15:27), Alan Schmitt wrote:
> >> On 26 févr. 2012, at 17:41, Simon Castellan wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I have been writing a parser for mlorg files in OCaml. This started as an
> >> > experiment to see if the literate programming mode of org-mode could 
> >> > scale to a
> >> > full application (among other things).
> >> 
> >> This looks very interesting, and would very much help in the
> >> dissemination of org-mode. Have you thought of announcing it on the
> >> caml mailing list?
> >> 
> >> Alan
> >
> > I have but prefer to wait mlorg to be more complete. This post was meant 
> > mainly
> > to gather info/document about org's syntax. (But as I said feedbacks 
> > welcome.)
> >
> Hi Simon,
> Nicolas Goaziou has been working recently on a new emacs-lisp parser of
> Org-mode files, with the goals of
> 1. standardizing the formal syntax of Org-mode files
> 2. parsing Org-mode files to a canonical emacs-lisp list-based
>    representation in memory (like an Org-mode AST)
> 3. re-basing the existing Org-mode exporters off of this canonical
>    representation
> This work is contained in contrib/lisp/org-element.el, which includes a
> large amount of useful commentary at the top of the file.  This should
> serve as a starting point for learning more about the formal syntax of
> Org-mode files (as it is defined).  I think that developing parsers for
> this syntax in multiple language should be very useful to ensure that a
> usable syntax is developed separate from any particular implementation.
> Cheers,

Thank you very much for this pointer, This is what I was looking for : a list of
syntaxic construction in org-mode. I'd say though that it lacks a more-or-less
formal syntaxic definition of constructions.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]