On 22 okt 2009, at 15:56, Robert Atkey wrote:
Previously parsed input /can/ determine what the parser will accept
in
the future (as pointed out by Peter Ljunglöf in his licentiate
thesis).
Consider the following grammar for the context-sensitive language
{aⁿbⁿcⁿ| n ∈ ℕ}:
Yes,
On 2009-10-22 14:56, Robert Atkey wrote:
Yes, it might have been that, OTOH I'm sure I saw it in some Haskell
code. Maybe I was imagining it.
There is some related Haskell code in the Agda repository.
Do you know of a characterisation of what languages having a possibly
infinite amount of
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:28 +0100, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
On 2009-10-07 17:29, Robert Atkey wrote:
A deep embedding of a parsing DSL (really a context-sensitive grammar
DSL) would look something like the following. I think I saw something
like this in the Agda2 code somewhere, but I
On 2009-10-07 17:29, Robert Atkey wrote:
A deep embedding of a parsing DSL (really a context-sensitive grammar
DSL) would look something like the following. I think I saw something
like this in the Agda2 code somewhere, but I stumbled across it when I
was trying to work out what free applicative
Hi Bob,
I tried to understand this by applying what you said here to your deep
embedding of a parsing DSL. But I can't figure out how to do that.
What things become the type class T?
greetings,
Sjoerd
On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Robert Atkey wrote:
What is a DSL?
How about this as a
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:49 +0200, Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Hi Bob,
I tried to understand this by applying what you said here to your deep
embedding of a parsing DSL. But I can't figure out how to do that.
What things become the type class T?
Here's the API version of the grammar DSL:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Colin Paul Adams
co...@colina.demon.co.ukwrote:
George == George Pollard por...@porg.es writes:
George I'd also like to note that the canonical pronunciation of
George DSL ends in -izzle.
Whose canon?
Interestingly, I have always assumed the
Gregg == Gregg Reynolds d...@mobileink.com writes:
Gregg On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Colin Paul Adams
Gregg co...@colina.demon.co.ukwrote:
George == George Pollard por...@porg.es writes:
George I'd also like to note that the canonical pronunciation of
George DSL ends
Perhaps it would be appropriate to point out the IFIP conference on
exactly that topic, DSL. The conference took place in July, here is
the permanent record:
http://dsl09.blogspot.com/
with pointers to the slides and the discussions.
The panel discussion has debated that very question,
I'd also like to note that the canonical pronunciation of DSL ends in -izzle.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
George == George Pollard por...@porg.es writes:
George I'd also like to note that the canonical pronunciation of
George DSL ends in -izzle.
Whose canon?
Interestingly, I have always assumed the canonical pronunciation of
DSSSL was diesel, as JADE stands for JAmes's DSSSL Engine.
I
quite a lot of stuff that is labeled as DSL, I
mean for example packages on hackage, quite useuful ones too, where I
don't see the split of assembling an expression tree from evaluating it,
to me that seems more like combinator libraries.
Thus:
What is a DSL?
Günther
is?
Because out there I see quite a lot of stuff that is labeled as DSL, I
mean for example packages on hackage, quite useuful ones too, where I
don't see the split of assembling an expression tree from evaluating it,
to me that seems more like combinator libraries.
Thus:
What is a DSL
ones too,
where I don't see the split of assembling an expression tree from
evaluating it, to me that seems more like combinator libraries.
Thus:
What is a DSL?
Günther
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org
Hi Emil,
now that is an interpretation I could live with!
Glad I posted the question.
Günther
Am 07.10.2009, 17:24 Uhr, schrieb Emil Axelsson e...@chalmers.se:
Hi,
A DSL is just a domain-specific language. It doesn't imply any specific
implementation technique.
An *embedded* DSL is a
evaluating it, to me that seems more like combinator libraries.
Thus:
What is a DSL?
Günther
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi Joe
Am 07.10.2009, 17:26 Uhr, schrieb Joe Fredette jfred...@gmail.com:
Let me add to this, as I've used the term DSL without (*gasp*) fully
understanding it before.
Welcome to the club then! :)
In addition to What is a DSL, I'd like to ask:
How is a DSL different from an API? -- in
is?
Because out there I see quite a lot of stuff that is labeled as DSL, I
mean for example packages on hackage, quite useuful ones too, where I don't
see the split of assembling an expression tree from evaluating it, to me
that seems more like combinator libraries.
Thus:
What is a DSL?
Günther
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 11:32 -0400, Joe Fredette wrote:
So, if I understand this:
Parsec is a DSL, I'm going to venture it's a Deep embedding -- I
don't understand the internals, but if I were to build something like
Parsec, I would probably build up a Parser datastructure and then
2009/10/7 Joe Fredette jfred...@gmail.com:
Let me add to this, as I've used the term DSL without (*gasp*) fully
understanding it before.
In addition to What is a DSL, I'd like to ask:
How is a DSL different from an API?
I don't think there is a sharp divide here. A nice example was given
by
Hi Don,
I've informally argued that a true DSL -- separate from a good API --
should have semantic characteristics of a language: binding forms,
control structures, abstraction, composition. Some have type systems.
That is one requirement that confuses me, abstraction.
I thought of DSLs as
What is a DSL?
How about this as a formal-ish definition, for at least a pretty big
class of DSLs:
A DSL is an algebraic theory in the sense of universal algebra. I.e. it
is an API of a specific form, which consists of:
a) a collection of abstract types, the carriers. Need not all be of
2009/10/7 Robert Atkey bob.at...@ed.ac.uk:
What is a DSL?
How about this as a formal-ish definition, for at least a pretty big
class of DSLs:
A DSL is an algebraic theory in the sense of universal algebra. I.e. it
is an API of a specific form, which consists of:
a) a collection of
23 matches
Mail list logo
