<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>From Regexes to Parsing Expression Grammars · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1210.4992/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1210.4992/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>From Regexes to Parsing Expression Grammars — mentioned by UncleEntity</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49862785</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1210.4992:49862785</guid><pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2026 02:36:48 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Which makes me wonder: what’s the appeal of PEGs or parser generators now? I just had the robots write a PEG parser generator... Which can do analysis on the grammars which, I suspect, a hand (or LLM) written one can&amp;#x27;t do so you don&amp;#x27;t end up chasing infinite recursion, dead rules and whatnot. It also got shoehorned into the regex engine (https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.4992) for my toy Java 1.0 compiler to loop back to TFA. For my APL interpreter they had to do the &amp;#x27;handwritten&amp;#x27; parser (a Pratt parser a sibling comment brings up) as you need to combine parsing and evaluation since there&amp;#x27;s no way…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1210.4992/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.FL</category></item></channel></rss>
