April 4, 2020
12:05 a.m.
On 4/04/20 9:29 am, Brett Cannon wrote:
I think "needs" is a bit strong. It would be nice, though. Regardless, as long as this is a net improvement over the status quo I don't see this being rejected on the grounds that an LR or LALR parser would be better since we have a working PEG parser today. :)
Even if the section only says "We didn't consider any alternatives, because...", I still think it should be there. -- Greg