The language of BNF for langcc (https://github.com/jzimmerman/langcc/blob/main/grammars/meta...) provides many syntactic conveniences that are not present in a Lisp-like language, so the fact that langcc supports it is a nontrivial achievement. In particular, an LR(0) parser would not be anywhere near adequate for it.
I wasn't saying langcc was not powerful, just that the shape of the argument doesn't make sense.
That part of the README goes something like this:
1. It can parse Python and Go efficiently.
2. In fact it's so expressive that it can even parse itself, which is a "language of languages".
If you had first shown some hard-to-parse langcc syntax, then sure, _that_ would be evidence of expressiveness. But there's nothing impressive about being able to parse a "language of languages", since a language of languages can be LR(0).
That part of the README goes something like this:
1. It can parse Python and Go efficiently.
2. In fact it's so expressive that it can even parse itself, which is a "language of languages".
If you had first shown some hard-to-parse langcc syntax, then sure, _that_ would be evidence of expressiveness. But there's nothing impressive about being able to parse a "language of languages", since a language of languages can be LR(0).