Re: PEG Parser

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Thanks for looking into this!  Perhaps Andy has some insight to share,
too?

Noah Lavine <address@hidden> writes:

> First of all, it passes its test suite. This is pretty good, because
> its test suite includes a grammar for itself, a grammar for basic
> mathematical equations, and a grammar for parsing /etc/passwd files.
> These all seem like good examples of things you'd want to parse.

While these are nice, small unit tests targeting specific parts of PEG
would seem useful to me, as in the rest of Guile.  This may not be
blocking, though.

[...]

> The only thing that seemed really weird is the macro safe-bind, which
> basically reimplements hygienic macros. It's used all over the place
> in the function-generating code. I also saw a couple of lines that
> were too long, but not many, and the whole thing could be split into a
> few modules, but it's not that long the way it is, so neither of those
> seem like big issues. It could also stand to have a bigger test suite
> (as the test suite itself says).

“./check-guile --coverage peg.test” can be used to measure code
coverage, normally.

I agree that PEG could be useful.

Thanks,
Ludo’.