You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi there! First, thanks for sharing. This looks well written and more or less easy to follow.
One thought I had though is that for readers who might need an overview of what computer languages do, I imagine that the PEG description of the grammar looks pretty magical.
I appreciate that defining PEG or how pest works isn’t your primary focus, but might it be more helpful to present the grammar using the operators from the Wikipedia article you posted and just assert that it translates to the form needed as pest input?
That way readers who follow up with the Wikipedia article can follow along more easily without having to read the pest manual which is likely to get into all sorts of other info.
Just an idea. Thanks again.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the suggestions! yes, also I'll go deeper into PEG and pest in the later chapters where I introduce what's necessary to add more language constructs support by going back and forth to grammar <-> ast.
Hi there! First, thanks for sharing. This looks well written and more or less easy to follow.
One thought I had though is that for readers who might need an overview of what computer languages do, I imagine that the PEG description of the grammar looks pretty magical.
I appreciate that defining PEG or how
pest
works isn’t your primary focus, but might it be more helpful to present the grammar using the operators from the Wikipedia article you posted and just assert that it translates to the form needed aspest
input?That way readers who follow up with the Wikipedia article can follow along more easily without having to read the
pest
manual which is likely to get into all sorts of other info.Just an idea. Thanks again.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: