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

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

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

On 05/18/11 01:46, Jean-Christophe Le Lann wrote:

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)

Are you aware of any kind of LL(k) grammar for an interesting subset
of Ruby ?
Anyone tried that with Citrus or Treetop ?

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 H…

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs