From: ················@yandex.ru
Subject: Parser generator or parse support libraries for Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <1137523726.516105.16000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Are there any usefull parser generators or parse support libraries for
Common Lisp?
What are you using?

From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Parser generator or parse support libraries for Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <ulkxesn3y.fsf@agharta.de>
On 17 Jan 2006 10:48:46 -0800, ·················@yandex.ru" <················@yandex.ru> wrote:

> Are there any usefull parser generators or parse support libraries
> for Common Lisp?

Some examples:

  <http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/cl-yacc/>
  <http://constantly.at/lisp/zebu-3.5.5-asdf.tgz>
  <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/parsing/lalr/0.html>
  <http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/Prag-Parse.html>

Cheers,
Edi.

-- 

Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.

Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Dave Baum
Subject: Re: Parser generator or parse support libraries for Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <Dave.Baum-1AC688.10405118012006@newshost.mot.com>
In article <·······················@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 ·················@yandex.ru" <················@yandex.ru> wrote:

> Are there any usefull parser generators or parse support libraries for
> Common Lisp?
> What are you using?

I have been using a modified version of cl-yacc 
<http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/cl-yacc/>

My modifications to cl-yacc did not change the underlying table 
generation at all, but mostly focused on the macro that builds the 
parser (adding a %n notation for using argument n, eliminating the need 
to eval-when anything called by a rule, adding special rule keywords to 
automatically generate rules for lists of items, optional items, etc).  
The code is only slightly tested, but if you are interested, let me know 
and I'll document my changes and post them somewhere.

I looked briefly at Zebu 
<http://constantly.at/lisp/zebu-3.5.5-asdf.tgz>, but lack of a simple 
operator precedence mechanism ruled it out for me.


Dave