Parser tests

[hardbyte]

Ported most of my parser tests across.

I've commented out the few that fail which are due to:

• not parsing unsigned ints
• not parsing raw strings
• parsing -3 as Int(-3) versus Unary(UnaryOp::Minus, Atom(Int(3)))

On the last one, do you want to keep the DoubleMinus, DoubleNegative unary ops?

[clarkmcc]

To clarify, your tests are failing with the current LALRPOP parser but are working on the chumsky parser, correct? Edit: ah yes, I see raw strings are not supported by the current parser.

Double minus is not anywhere in the spec that I can find. Seems like we could implement recursive operators if we need to support it in the future. I'm not sure exactly what the thought process was behind supporting double minus, but not implicit triple minus, and so on. I'm good either way, your thoughts?

[hardbyte]

Double minus is not anywhere in the spec that I can find. Seems like we could implement recursive operators if we need to support it in the future. I'm not sure exactly what the thought process was behind supporting double minus, but not implicit triple minus, and so on. I'm good either way, your thoughts?

Oh right I assumed you had implemented the double minus etc. I think we try follow as close to the spec as possible so I'd suggest removing the DoubleX operations. Do you want to try do that for the existing parser though?

Yes a recursive approach to parsing unary operators is how I've implemented it in my parser - https://github.com/hardbyte/common-expression-language/blob/main/parser/src/parser.rs#L261-L270 and yes these tests currently pass in mine.

In my repo I'll aim to add support for byte strings as I skipped those.

[clarkmcc]

I won't worry about trying to remove it from the existing parser unless we decide to keep both parsers.