Dragoș Tiselice

Unfortunately, no. Even if there was, you wouldn't be able to call it from a procedural macro. What is needed is a more mature procedural macro API.

This is a very tricky issue. One of the points of pest is to not need an extra tool & step to generate your parser. My solution here would be...

A good first step here would probably be to have an attribute `#[export(grammar = "my_grammar.pest")]` that would generate a header `my_grammar.h` in `src/..` and its implementation. Maybe a trait the...

@Victor-Savu Yes. I agree that it makes sense to separate the optimizer in its own crate. I'll work on it once #159 is merged.

@jstnlef I agree. This was tagged 2.0 tentatively.

Good point. There should be an import command in `.pest` files. This could be added in `1.1`. Let me know if you want to tackle it.

Of course. The necessary grammar should be [added to meta](https://github.com/pest-parser/pest/blob/master/meta/src/grammar.pest). Probably something like `use generic.pest` would do well. Then this should be somehow integrated into the parser and validator in...

Interesting proposal. I haven't really thought about implementing `FromStr` until now because of the `Rule` type complication. I think this would be a good place to start discussing parser typing...

This is exactly what the precedence climbing effort is all about! 😃 Instead of having separate expressions on multiple levels in your grammar, you should ideally only have one flat...

Why, though? You do get that information with `PrecClimber`. The only downside is that one cannot understand predecence/associativity by reading only the grammar, but functionality wise, it's the same.