On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Nick Coghlan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 13 July 2013 23:26, David Beazley <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm in favor of PLY going into stdlib with the caveat that there are some things about it that should probably be cleaned up and modernized. For instance, the method by which it writes the cached parsing tables needs to be cleaned up. I still think putting the LALR(1) generator code into a common library usable by both PLY/RPLY would be a useful thing to do. That code is really hairy and non-trivial to understand without something like the Dragon book nearby (and even then it's not easy).So, if I were to make any kind of proposal, I would say, make a standard library module for just the LALR(1) generator code. If the PLY interface is needed to add pycparser or cffi to the standard library, that can be added too, but as a separate module that uses the more general LALR(1) library.
lrparsing is a more recent entry in the LR parsing stakes:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lrparsing (although, as Russell put it in his PyCon AU lightning talk, if PLY had shown up ranked higher than 506 in his PyPI search for "parser", he probably would have just used that: http://pyvideo.org/video/2222/sunday-lightning-talks at about 2:15)
(I plan to bug Russell about putting that up on one of the DVCS hosting sites next time I see him at BrisPy - for the moment, the source is available through the tarball/sdist)It seems a bit new compared to PLY's 15 years of existence to be considered in the running. Plus Russell would need to change the license from GPL.