Simon Martin

Pending: tests in `lrlex/src/lib/lexer.rs` Question: If the input to `fn lexer(...)` leaves the lexer with a non-empty stack, should it be retained for (optional) resumption with a following call to...

My understanding from the above, is that it would be worth extending the return value from `lexer()` to include details of the final state of the start condition stack. I...

Sorry, I've been on family vacation - I'll aim to get the next commits in in the next couple of days From: Laurence Tratt ***@***.***> Sent: 04 September 2022 10:42...

Sorry for the delay on this one - I've had a number of distractions come up in my personal and professional life in the last few months. I'll hopefully be...

> I guess, I have one minor question that isn't quite about this patch the example, _lrpar/examples/start_states/comment.y_ Wondering if it is intended, or if it would be better to include...

Could you clarify exactly what you'd expect to be in `LexingState` under https://github.com/softdevteam/grmtools/pull/341#issuecomment-1277830747 ? I'm having some difficulty tracking which suggestions are current and which have been superseded.

The classic one is nested comments

Misunderstanding of the spec - can't see anything in the spec to permit numeric start conditions. Remaining: stack of start conditions (push + pop operations)

I'm considering a +/- as prefixes before the start condition name in the rule action, e.g. ``` %x bracket brace %% { 'OPEN BRACE' } 'CLOSE BRACE' [ 'OPEN BRACKET'...

Technically, the pop will always pop the top of the stack - so could just be `` - thought it made sense to be consistent with push, but possibly consider...