[samatman]

> there's no such thing as dynamic parsing

As long as we're indulging in pedantry, this is incorrect presuming dynamic means what it usually means. Any regular expression constructed at runtime contradicts you.

Modifying your core parser at runtime though, who would do such a thing? Other than reader macros in Common Lisp I mean. Are we going to argue this means Common Lisp doesn't parse if we add reader macros at runtime? A peculiar argument.

Now. Should we talk about whether doing that is a good idea? A lovely and separate conversation. I agree with GP that since Perl will spit out a parse tree, it does in fact parse, and since it's not static, well, it's dynamic.

Which we can prove by, I dunno, writing some Perl which only parses on Fridays. Right?

[bmn__]

> Modifying your core parser at runtime though, who would do such a thing?

Perl? Its numerous language extensions allowed it to stay competitive for such a long time. Every time someone says "language X can do Y but Perl doesn't have that syntax", a new CPAN module is born to amend the shortcoming.

[lmm]

> Are we going to argue this means Common Lisp doesn't parse if we add reader macros at runtime? A peculiar argument.

Peculiar how? Isn't that just common sense?