On Feb 27, 2013 4:31 AM, "Michael Foord" fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 11:00, David Beazley dave@dabeaz.com wrote:
From: Eli Bendersky eliben@gmail.com
I'll be the first one to admit that pycparser is almost certainly not generally useful enough to be exposed in the stdlib. So just using it
as an
implementation detail is absolutely fine. PLY is a more interesting question, however, since PLY is somewhat more generally useful. That
said,
I see all this as implementation details that shouldn't distract us
from
the main point of whether cffi should be added.
Regarding the inclusion of PLY or some subcomponent of it in the
standard library, it's not an entirely crazy idea in my opinion.
+1 PLY is capable and well tried-and-tested. We used it in Resolver One
to implement a pretty large grammar and it is (in my opinion) best of breed in the Python parser generator world. Being stable and widely used, with an "available maintainer", makes it an ideal candidate for standard library inclusion.
Is this still on the table?
-eric