Francis Galiegue
Francis Galiegue
> Pattern itself doesn't use/require implementation of method subSequence. It does. I speak from experience here. A `Matcher` takes a `CharSequence` as an argument and this is not for kicks....
OK, fine, then the decision is yours. I believe my patch is pretty simple to be included as is, since the results of it are basically stateless.
Some more comments... > Creation of String - is a copy-on-read, which might be undesirable in scenarios, where expected that method "subSequence" guarantees constant time. Let's be realistic here for...
Uuh... OK, fair point. This is the first usage ever I have seen of static rules to be honest :)
Meh, you are basically asking for a whole message API there :p Well, why not, what would be the user API?
Yes, I agree with that. The (internal) current API however causes two problems: - error messages are either collected (`ReportingParseRunner`, others) or not at all (`BasicParseRunner`); - the `Rule` interface...
Good idea... Done.
Actually, I'll leave this issue open until the next version is out.
> Such rules are currently not possible because the generated caching code never finds a match and therefore causes an infinite recursion during parser generation. Yes, that's what happens. Unfortunately...
This is due to an incorrect gathering of arguments when building the rule. Fixing that will be quite a chore to do... Delaying to 2.2.