Erez Shinan

That sounds like a roundabout solution, but I'm willing to consider it.

Hi, what are the two outputs? I ran it a dozen times and always got the same result: f_def: 'loopfunc' tdef : loopfunc number: 33 evdef: 33 tdef : 33...

Well, I would guess that the WHATEVER: /[^\\r\\n]+/ Terminal is pretty challenging, since it means it has to try every variation of ANY TEXT.

Hi @sjolicoeur, 1) The Earley parser should be consistent. If you have a grammar that parses differently each time and you can share it, please do. 2) The best way...

Yes, I can see the bug. Thanks for providing some code. I've narrowed it down to this example: ```python from lark import Lark grammar = """ start: (","|rest)+ rest: WORD+...

I like these versions: 1. ```ruby rule: rule1 rule2 ``` 2. ```ruby rule : rule1 | rule2 ``` The first one is cleaner and the positions of the alternatives are...

> it'd be cool if they could be used out of the box with lark, or maybe converting them automatically to lark Yes, that's a good idea. I'd say converting...

Yep, that's what I was planning.

@marxsk Line comments are already possible ```python >>> from lark import Lark >>> p=Lark(""" ... // Comment ... start: "a" ... // Another comment ... | "b" ... // And...

I just had a crazy thought. What if Lark accepted a `grammar_grammar` argument, which would describe the syntax for the grammar? (it should work as long as the structure is...