Loup, By 'fork' I meant to imply creating a publicly-visible repository that pops up in google searches and prevents you finding the place where the progress is being made, unless you happen to spot the tiny icon hidden in the corner that takes you to the repo from which your current page was forked. (That's a personal gripe and might be blowing my dislike of github, et al., out of all proportion. :) Cloning a repo and experimenting/breaking/repairing in order to understand is not the same, nor is using your local Mercurial repository clone to work locally and then contribute back to a parent repo. If that's what Faré meant by "fork" then I'm all for it.
On Oct 21, 2013, at 08:36 , Loup Vaillant-David wrote: > I'm now doing the same with Earley Parsing[3]. The Wikipedia article's presentation is not the clearest and it is about the minimum needed, with some reading between the lines, to make a working recogniser. Earley's thesis and original papers are known to contain errors. I recommend you get hold of "Parsing Techniques: A Practical Guide" (Grune and Jacobs, Springer, 2008) which presents lots of parsing algorithms (including several chart parsers) clearly and concisely. There are a few papers building on Earley's work that contain clear presentations of the original algorithm, parse tree reconstruction and their compact representations; e.g., "SPPF-Style Parsing from Earley Recognisers" (Elizabeth Scott, Elsevier, 2008) and "Practical Earley Parsing" (Aycock and Horspool, The Computer Journal, 45(6), 2002). I agree entirely that after noticing that following the causality of predict and scan steps (backwards from the final states) gives all the derivations, the rest is relatively easy. > - Read scientific papers. I gathered a surface understanding of some > principles, but nothing solid yet. > - Build a toy from scratch. I'll probably do that, since it worked > so far. These two are fun to do in parallel. They feed each other very well. > Here is how I would imagine my dream world. It would be a central > repository with: > > - A toy Maru, optimised for clarity. > - A tutorial for writing your own toy. > - A serious Maru, lifted up from the toy. > - A tutorial for lifting your own toy up. > - The hand-written bootstrap compilers (for understanding, and the > Trusting Trust problem). > > Does this dream world sounds possible? Is it even a good idea? I hope so, and I think so. At some point you could consider literate programming. Jones Forth is one example of how this can be attempted even from the very first point (http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/jonesforth-git-repository). By the time you're on the third step, the above hierarchy could begin to support source code representations intended for ease of understanding. Regards Ian _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
