instaparse

If you're not trampolining your parser, why bother getting up in the morning?
aengelberg 2015-06-19T02:20:49.000062Z

@lucasbradstreet: have you considered using cljx for the instaparse source code as well, so it's easier to merge upstream changes?

lucasbradstreet 2015-06-19T02:25:32.000063Z

Yes, that one is a bit of a trade off. There will definitely be more merge issues and it does kinda uglify the code a lot. It mostly depends on whether Mark would prefer separate cljs and clj, or cljx in an eventual upstream merge

aengelberg 2015-06-19T02:32:45.000064Z

I was thinking it might actually make it easier to merge upstream changes, because currently if a feature is changed in the clj version, it is quietly merged into the clj source without changing the cljs side at all.