Igor Dejanović

Current workaround is to do visitor job in some of the calling rules. For example: ``` python def visit_data(self, node, children): return [float(x) for x in children] ```

Of course. But can't tell when I'll have time to do it. if you have time and this issue is hurting you maybe you could try? It shouldn't be very...

I think it should be relatively straight forward to support this although it would require first implementing the same feature in `ParserPython`. I don't see any conceptual difficulty as the...

I'm planing a more general approach for parser composability. Something like this: ``` python from lib.external import rule1, rule2 from arpeggio import GrammarPython, GrammarPEG, GrammarCPEG, Parser ... parser = Parser(GrammarPython(calc),...

Thanks. It would indeed be better if new `Match` inherited class is used. What do you get if you try to inherit? I haven't tried something myself but it should...

Thanks for the report. It is indeed misleading.

Hi @dodumosu. That is due to the way Arpeggio deals with plain string matches. When you have something in your grammar that will always match the same (string match without...

Actually, returning `None` from visitor will remove that value in the upper visitors. The tree is constructed previous to applying visitors so all nodes are there all the time during...

That was an early design decision, to remove elements that consume no input from the tree. IIRC the motivation was to make parse tree minimal and thus lower memory consumption...

> Would it be possible to have an option to retain all the childrens? Probably it would. I'm trying to figure out a general solution. For example, you would have...