matt rice

To get the example working through nimbleparse (besides adding a lex file for it), I had to add the following, Edit: It seems like that might not be producing the...

> Since I plan to be doing a lot of work on the front end (mainly elaboration) of SML/NJ over the next year or two, it would make sense to...

I think it is okay in a template (Or at least I'm failing to see why it is problematic at least when vars doesn't change between substitutions), however it is...

Comes to mind that with the horrible hack, is seems undoubtedly likely to produce the 'unused rule' and 'unused token' warnings/errors. You'll likely need to set at least [`warnings_are_errors`](https://docs.rs/lrpar/latest/lrpar/struct.CTParserBuilder.html#method.warnings_are_errors) and...

> [@ratmice](https://github.com/ratmice) Definitely! It would be good to do something nicer here, though an interesting question is what "unused" means if you have multiple start rules. Interesting question, my inclination...

> Also, each of these `start` targets is probably a different type (in my use, that's definitely the case.) Ahh, yeah there are definitely complexities with this multiple start rules...

I do not know of any workaround using GATs, but the `lender` crate (which has a lot of scary warnings in its README). can be used without running into this...

I haven't been using GATs very long, so I don't know if there are any workarounds for stable, but I does seem that this example does actually compile with `RUSTFLAGS="-Zpolonius"...

Thank you, it does help to have that overview. With that I believe I should be able to get it working locally without too much trouble.

Also linking #417 since it is very much related, but posix lex uses a slightly different syntax for this. ``` DIGIT [0-9] ID [a-z][a-z0-9]* %% {DIGIT}+ "DIGITS" ``` Would we...