From: John Porter [mailto:email@example.com] > People want to have their cake and eat it too; and Perl has > encouraged them by delivering this in ways other languages > never did. Can you fault the editor writer for wanting to > include *accurate* perl syntax highlighting? Urk. Syntax highlighting requires something different from a parser than language compilation. For a start, it requires an "incremental" mode, where it can just parse what's visible (with a bit of context hunting, but we don't want to parse the whole file each time - that really kills performance). Also, it needs to be able to recognise and resync on partial fragments. Consider someone editing $var = fn() ? «» : «» if «»; which I could easily imagine being generated by some sort of editor "insert a template" functionality (indeed, I know one such). Reusing a compiler parser on that is likely to be a challenge :-) I don't have a problem with wanting to make it more possible to handle Perl in this sort of context - but don't assume that splitting out the parser is a "magic bullet". OTOH, I'm strongly against the idea that the language syntax has to be constrained by the needs of the parser. And I don't think that redesigning Perl's syntax to be easily parseable is going to get anywhere - the result just wouldn't be Perl, in some very fundamental ways. Paul.