Volker, did you see a few posts back that I did the run Roger asked about,
on RSC’s huge corpus? It is about 10x the size and its parens, braces, and
brackets match just fine, all *7476284* of them....
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:13 PM Michael Jones <michael.jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> They matched up until yesterday. When I updated at 2am California time it
> changed. It also had no "0o" octal literals up until the latest.
>
> I'd planned to joke how the race was on to be the first to check in a new
> octal literal in my mail, but a few of those snuck in too.
>
> Yesterday:
> Count | Frequency | Detail
> ---:|---:|---
> 929548 | 19.7889% | ,
> 574886 | 12.2386% | .
>
> * 544819 | 11.5985% | ( 544819 | 11.5985% | ) *
>
> * 352547 | 7.5053% | { 352547 | 7.5053% | } *
> 288042 | 6.1321% | =
> 253563 | 5.3980% | :
> 155297 | 3.3061% | :=
>
> *138465 | 2.9478% | [ 138465 | 2.9478% | ] *
> 78567 | 1.6726% | !=
> 72007 | 1.5329% | *
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:51 PM Volker Dobler <dr.volker.dob...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cool work!
>>
>> What I found most astonishing on a first look: Not all
>> parentheses ( are closed: 4 ) seem to be missing??
>> For { 5 are unclosed while there is one more ] than [ ?
>>
>> Are you parsing testfiles with deliberate errors?
>>
>> V.
>>
>> On Wednesday, 12 June 2019 15:08:44 UTC+2, Michael Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working on a cascade of projects, each needing the next as a
>>> part, the most recent being rewriting text.Scanner. It was not a goal, but
>>> the existing scanner does not do what I need (recognize Go operators,
>>> number types, and more) and my shim code was nearly as big as the standard
>>> library scanner itself, so I just sat down an rewrote it cleanly.
>>>
>>> To test beyond hand-crafted edge cases it seemed good to try it against
>>> a large body of Go code. I chose the Go 1.13 code base, and because the
>>> results are interesting on their own beyond my purpose of code testing, I
>>> thought to share what I've noticed as a Github Gist on the subject of the
>>> "Go Popularity Contest"—what are the most used types, most referenced
>>> packages, most and least popular operators, etc. The data are interesting,
>>> but I'll let it speak for itself. Find it here:
>>>
>>> https://gist.github.com/MichaelTJones/ca0fd339401ebbe79b9cbb5044afcfe2
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> P.S. Generated by go test. I just cut off the "passed" line and posted
>>> it. ;-)
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Michael T. jonesmichae...@gmail.com*
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1a0e2b4b-9276-4418-929c-51888cf2c93a%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1a0e2b4b-9276-4418-929c-51888cf2c93a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
*Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com <michael.jo...@gmail.com>*
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CALoEmQw%2BWmrgRWofpcRdAWxzyPg0qYbLNSn5Vt-c1JYJ75dJdQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
