Thanks for the suggestion. I based the syntax off of EBNF, and hadn't run across ABNF notation before your link just now. It shouldn't be too hard to add support for ABNF's repetition syntax and comments. Getting the semantics of the terminal values to precisely match the ABNF spec seems like more effort -- how essential is that piece do you think, versus just using strings and regexes for the terminals?
Support for comments in the EBNF notation is probably a good idea too. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:29 AM, David Powell <djpow...@djpowell.net> wrote: > > Looks awesome. > > Would it be possible to plug in support for the ABNF[1] notation that the > IETF use? Might be useful for implementing standards. Mostly just a > different syntax for repetition, and has support for comments. > > [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/std/std68.txt > > -- > Dave > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
