Ichthyostega 089fafc1bd Library: change DSL scheme to handle optional and repeated better ...

It seemed that using postfix-decorating operators would be a good fit
for the DSL. Exploring this idea further showed however, that such a scheme
is indeed a good fit from the implementation side, but leads to rather confusing
and hard to grasp DSL statements for many non-trivial syntax definition.
The reason is: such a postfix-decorator will by default work on ''everything defined''
up to that point; this is too much in many cases.

The other alternative would be a function-style definition, which has the benefit
to take the sub-clause directly as argument (so the scope is always explicit).
The downside is that argument arrangement is a bit more tricky for the repetition
combinator (there can be mis-matches, since we take the »SPEC« as free-template argument)
And, moreover, with function-style, having more top-level entrance points would
be helpful. Overall, no fundamental roadblock, just more technicalities in the setup
of the DSL functions.

With that re-arrangd structure, an optional combinator could be easily integrated,
and a solution was provided to pick up the parser function from a sub-expression
defined as Syntax object.

2025-01-23 19:48:30 +01:00

8.9 MiB

Raw Blame History

The file is too large to be shown.