Formal grammar spec for prql about prql HOT 4 CLOSED

Once syntax has an initial decision, I can take up an ANTLR parser

from prql.

Thanks for opening the issue @qorrect !

My initial plan was to write a parser in nom, which I've heard great things about and had good initial experiences with. As you can see, it's not much at the moment.

I think a formal grammar would be useful, and the language is developed enough to start on that if someone wants to have a go. I would vote to go for a PEG grammar given the language is relatively simple™, and if we pursue the nom route it'll be broadly compatible.

As ever, open to feedback! Thank you!

from prql.

Now that we're using pest, we have an analytical grammar to coordinate around.

My sense is that while some details are still evolving, the analytical spec is sufficient, and we can formalize when there's less evolution. But if anyone would benefit from changes (e.g. @qorrect depending on what's helpful for you if you're doing this in python), feel free to comment.

from prql.

With a formal grammar you could generate a syntax diagram #1810.

from prql.