Mark Engelberg

I'm continuing to think about this, but it's definitely a non-trivial change that requires careful consideration. Here's one question: If instaparse provides for streams of tokens, is instaparse also obligated...

I appreciate the compact example of the problem. I'm investigating. Two observations so far: If you produce _all_ the parses using `insta/parses`, the correct parse is there, it is just...

Ah, I just noticed that your grammar would be more equivalent to: ``` := Symbol (WS+ Symbol)* ``` which does manifest the problem, so maybe it does have something to...

OK, I understand what is going on now. It's not actually a bug, per se, but it is a subtle difference from the way Instaparse actually treats ordered choice, versus...

Clarification: Above, I said it is asking the question "Is there any valid parse for this?:" ``` := Symbol (WS+ Symbols)? Symbol := NonDelim+ := !WS #'.' := ``` which...

I'm starting to wonder whether ordered choice really should have any special meaning at all inside a negative lookahead. Maybe the solution to making this more intuitive is that inside...

Certainly the workaround for now would be to have one whitespace rule with regular alternation to use inside of lookaheads, and one whitespace rule with ordered choice to be used...

As I'm looking through the negative-lookahead code and refreshing my memory, I'm remembering that I did in fact already adjust this logic to make ordered-choice-in-negative-lookahead behave as expected, but it's...

In my effort to give a running commentary as I explored this, I gave a muddled impression of what is going on. You can safely ignore a lot of what...

Agreed. Again, I appreciate your distilling it down to something that I could analyze and eventually get my head around what was going on.