Re: Make peg.el a built-in library?

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:18:15AM -0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:
>> 
>> > Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>> >
>> >>> Is there any progress merging peg.el to Emacs?
>> >>> I do not see any obvious blockers in the discussion, but the merge never
>> >>> happened?
>
> [...]
>
>> > As the comment in peg.el states, the definitions are adapted from the
>> > original PEG paper [...]
>
>> This is what I was saying in my original message, though: if peg.el is
>> going to go into core, it probably needs more/better docs than code
>> comments and "read this paper". Its likely users will be Elisp library
>> authors like me, who are just trying to free themselves from regexp hell
>> and want a relatively straightforward alternative.
>
> Yes. Coming from regexp they are deceivingly similar but frustratingly
> different.
>
> The best way I found to wrap my head around them is that they are a
> fancy notation for a recursive descent parser. Thus slightly more
> powerful than regexps, but slightly less than a full YACC (i.e. LALR
> or thereabouts).
>
> What is attractive about them is that one can do "full" parsers
> (as long as your grammar is roughly LL(k)) without having to build
> two storey buildings. I guess it takes some practice, though (I
> haven't).
>
> I think comparing them to treesitter is a category error.

Okay, this is all sounding good. I'm going to read the paper, try to get
my head around all this, and write some docs for peg.el.