nom parser instead of ad-hoc in examples#20122
nom parser instead of ad-hoc in examples#20122cj-zhukov wants to merge 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
High-Level OverviewThis PR is an exploratory step to evaluate whether using a parser combinator library ( In a previous PR #19750, the parsing of subcommands and example metadata in
Personally, I found the That said, this PR is intentionally limited in scope. If the project sees value in adopting Feedback on whether this trade-off is worthwhile is very welcome. |
|
I'd like to keep the parser simple for now. Currently, it can't handle extra symbols like () in the description of an example. In practice, only one group I'm happy to improve the parser in the future to handle such cases more robustly if needed. For now, this keeps the code readable and avoids unnecessary complexity. |
|
@Jefffrey since you helped with previous PRs related to example docs generation, it would be great if you could take a look at this one as well. Your feedback or any improvements would be much appreciated. |
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?