LL(k) grammar for an interesting *subset* of Ruby ?

[Jean-Christophe Le Lann]

Hello

Are you aware of any kind of LL(k) grammar for an interesting *subset*
of Ruby ?

Or maybe ruby basic constructs do not fit LL(k) principles ?

Anyone tried that with Citrus or Treetop ?

Thanks
JCLL

 

[Jean-Christophe Le Lann]

Sorry, please forget my question.

Google gave me this : ruby-tp-dw-gram

http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/ruby-tp-dw-gram/ruby-tp-dw-gram-0.1.tar.gz

Thx
JCLL

Le 17/05/2011 09:08, Jean-Christophe Le Lann a écrit :

 

[Clifford Heath]

Google gave me this : ruby-tp-dw-gram
http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/ruby-tp-dw-gram/ruby-tp-dw-gram-0.1.tar.gz

Four years old (so no 1.9 syntax), a 0.1 version number, written in Lisp,
and claims *not* to parse Ruby correctly. Good luck with that! (really)

Nathan Sobo (author of Treetop, which I now maintain) intended to, but got
side-tracked into adding incremental parser facilities into Treetop so that
he could implement a syntax-directed editor for Ruby... I don't think the
actual Ruby grammar ever got properly started.

It's definitely possible, and now, there's a Ruby test suite to use as well.

The advantage of using a PEG is that PEG grammars are composable, so you
could incorporate grammar rule definition into the core language, allowing
Ruby to extend itself into any language. I hoped this might eventuate, but
now, I think that Javascript and V8 is the right implementation target.

Clifford Heath.