On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:55 , Zsolt SZALAI wrote:
Er? Refactoring the grammar like that is the clean and preferred
way. But if you insist, use the try combinator.
Oh, all right, i was trying to be loyal to the BNF in standard.
BNF doesn't necessarily apply cleanly to all types of parsers.
>
>
> Er? Refactoring the grammar like that is the clean and preferred
> way. But if you insist, use the try combinator.
>
Oh, all right, i was trying to be loyal to the BNF in standard.
>
> structuredTypeDef = try recordDef <|> recordOfDef
>
> --
> brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl
On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:41 , Zsolt SZALAI wrote:
It is a possibility to do something like swap "recordDef <|>
recordOfDef" with "recordlikeDefs "
where recordlikeDefs = do { reserved "record" ; others }
but that would be the dirty way...
Er? Refactoring the grammar like that is the clean a
Hi!
I'm writing a parser for a language, with a BNF like this:
Type = "type" Def
Def = RecordDef | RecordOfDef ...
RecordDef = "record" Body
RecordOfDef = "record" "of"
With a perser what uses parsec module it can be mapped to haskell easily:
structuredTypeDef = recordDef
<|>
