From: Mark <msparshatt@...>
Date: 2004-02-24T04:07:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby to Parrot compiler

Chad Fowler wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
>
># 
># On Feb 22, 2004, at 03:58, Robert Feldt wrote:
># 
># > [Ripper] In theory should be in sync with Ruby's parser since it is 
># > based on it but might lag if there are changes to Ruby's (although I 
># > think changes are minor in practice). Downside: more work.
># 
># One thing about Ripper that I heard at the RubyConf (someone please 
># correct me if I'm wrong) is that matz plans on using it for Rite's 
># parser, so eventually it is guaranteed to always be in sync with the 
># most current Ruby. For that reason it seems like it would be great for 
># folks to be improving it now, as it means less work for matz in the 
># long run.
># 
>
>
>I remember hearing the same but would like to know if this info is still 
>current.  Matz?
>
>  
>
I'm still undecided about which parser to use for the compiler. If this 
info is current then Ripper would be the best choice.

So can anyone in the know confirm this?

--
Mark Sparshatt