Lark should be "programming" like ANTLR or EBNF #5231
-
Lark is classified as "data". Yet EBNF, PEG, ANTLTR, etc, are classified as "programming". Is there any reason for this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
🤔 EBNF is not: Linguist doesn't know about PEG, but I agree ANTLR is. As for why Lark is considered "data": from the original PR: #5049 (courtesy of @Alhadis)
So it'll be because EBNF is considered data. Why? Support was added in #3312 which doesn't provide much info but the commit 33899b9 states:
... and the wiki page linked states:
Which kinda aligns with EBNF not being a programming language itself. As for ANTLR's determination: that's been in Linguist for well over 8 years ago in #697 and hasn't been changed since then. The PR doesn't provide any details so it's possible it was incorrectly classified as "programming" waaaaay back then and maybe should be "data" like EBNF and Lark. Of course all of this could be wrong. I don't know as I know nothing about any of these languages 😁 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
🤔 EBNF is not:
https://github.com/github/linguist/blob/fcda9cfe7295c1d51409c2de5f111b9847ff427b/lib/linguist/languages.yml#L1287-L1288
Linguist doesn't know about PEG, but I agree ANTLR is.
As for why Lark is considered "data": from the original PR: #5049 (courtesy of @Alhadis)
So it'll be because EBNF is considered data. Why?
Support was added in #3312 which doesn't provide much info but the commit 33899b9 states:
... and the wiki page …