Igor Dejanović

In the context of lexical ambiguity it would be nice to have a way to define which lexeme is preferred over which. For example: ``` terminals: a: {>b, >c}; b:...

Boolean assignment `?=` should imply that RHS is matched optionally. Thus: ``` Rule: some_attr?=SomeRule?; ``` could be written a little bit cleaner: ``` Rule: some_attr?=SomeRule; ```

Related to #30 Parsing should not continue in case of conflicts as [conflict resolution strategies](http://www.igordejanovic.net/parglare/parser/#prefer_shifts) are used for table construction.

The diagram would depict the structure of the language. Similar to [textX meta-model visualization](http://www.igordejanovic.net/textX/visualization/#meta-model-visualization).

In #7 an action will be provided for creating Python objects with attributes set using named matches #2. This feature would provide a possibility to reference a rule that uses...

Rules that have on RHS only a single rule reference or alternative choice of single rule references should be treated as syntactic inheritance -- e.g. LHS is considered a generalization...

TEP-001: Reference resolving support in the textX language

34

This is an initial proposal for making an extensions to textX language to support resolving/scoping definition declaratively in the grammar. textX support automatic reference resolving by [referencing grammar rule inside...

Here are some ideas for better visualization. Some of the work is already on `better-dot-visualization` branch: - [x] Remove base types (there will always be a diagram in the docs...

An option to retain and have access to whitespaces and comments

2

Needed during transpiling, refactor, code augmentation etc. See [here](https://github.com/textX/textX/issues/54#issuecomment-503527852) Related to https://github.com/textX/Arpeggio/issues/56