Lark VS Flake8

Lark supports, and recommends, writing and storing the grammar in a .lark file. We have syntax highlighting support in all major IDEs, and even in github itself. For example, here is Lark's built-in grammar for Python: https://github.com/lark-parser/lark/blob/master/lark/grammar...

You can also test grammars "live" in our online IDE: https://www.lark-parser.org/ide/

The rationale is that it's more terse and has less visual clutter than a DSL over Python, which makes it easier to read and write.

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Erez. You may know some of the Python libraries I wrote in the past: Lark, Preql and Data-diff.

It's not super maintained but you might enjoy building something with ppci, Pure Python Compiler Infrastructure. It has some front-ends and some back-ends. There's also PeachPy for an assembler. People like using Lark for parsing, I hear.

lark, a parsing library where I am somewhat involved has a really nice solution to this: Rules starting with _ are inlined in a post processing step.

Lark is a good library to assist with this.

If I may ask, did you consider Lark, and if so, why wasn't it fit for your purposes?

A grammar provides the high level constructs you need to define the "shape" of your data, and it largely takes care of the rest. Grammar libraries exist in other language (eg. lark or Parsimonius in Python) and they weren't created just to make XML parsing easier.

I made a solid attempt at an Earley parser framework of my own, but apparently to get the most reliable performance from Earley parsing you need to implement Joop Leo's improvement for right-recursive grammars, which nobody has been able to adequately explain to me. I've read Kegler's open letter to Vaillant, I've tried to read other implementations, I've even tried to beat my head against the original academic paper, but I don't have the background knowledge to make sense of it all.

Automating code checks with static code analysis allows us to enforce code styling effectively. By integrating tools into our workflow, we can identify errors at an early stage, while coding instead of blocking us at the end. For instance, flake8 checks Python code for style and errors, eslint performs similar checks for JavaScript, and prettier automatically formats code to maintain consistency.

Flake8. This library is a wrapper around pycodestyle (PEP8), pyflakes, and Ned Batchelder’s McCabe script. It is a great toolkit for checking your code base against coding style (PEP8), programming errors (like SyntaxError, NameError, etc) and to check cyclomatic complexity.

Flake8 combines the functionalities of the PyFlakes, pycodestyle, and McCabe libraries. It provides a streamlined approach to code linting by detecting coding errors, enforcing style conventions, and measuring code complexity.

He made yesqa and pyupgrade (among others), and also works on flake8. His main job is for https://sentry.io/.

repos: - repo: https://github.com/psf/black rev: 21.7b0 hooks: - id: black language_version: python3.8 - repo: https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8 rev: 3.9.2 hooks: - id: flake8

https://github.com/psf/black it’s a PEP8 compliant formatter for Python codebases. If you don’t like auto formatting files you can use https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8 it just lists out all of the style issues so you can fix them manually.

I have no stake in that, but my observation is that the actual discussion appears to have both supporters and detractors rather than overwhelming support. Either way, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is realistic to say that Ruff is the "one Python linter to rule them all".