> And no one will ever be able to implement a tool that works with the input language But what do you get with such a tool? Syntax highlighting and cryptic err

> And no one will ever be able to implement a tool that works with the input language But what do you get with such a tool? Syntax highlighting and cryptic error messages on the syntax only. And then you hit a wall and if you want to offer more to your users (refactoring, autocomplete, etc) you have to reimplement everything anyway). > CFGs are equivalent to modularity in language design. A choice, clearly, but one with significant upsides. My point above aside, you bring up a great point, and something I need to improve on a lot in Grammar (modularity so Tree Languages can be run on many host systems). Now my wheels are turning. Thanks!