On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jeffrey Kegler <
[email protected]> wrote:

>  Actually, the SLIF allows angle brackets, but they are optional for
> non-terminals.
>
Yes it does!

So the only thing needed is to change double quotes to single for literals
and wrap literals in single quotes and that's it —
https://gist.github.com/rns/17853fa8f539f4f964c9 — ah, and he uses C-style
comments, while SLIF uses Perl's. :)


> His analysis of the types of ambiguity is interesting.  What I call
> factoring he calls "associativity", and what I call "symbolic choice" (or
> symch) <http://search.cpan.org/%7Ejkegl/Marpa-R2-2.087_001/pod/Glade.pod>,
> he calls alternate routes (or multiple paths).  My problem would be that
> different factorings *also* allow alternate routes, so that I find the
> linked-to page's terminology to be kind of confusing.  Nonetheless he does
> have the taxonomy, one which I had to discover, for doing the abstract
> syntax forests.  I wonder if Prof Heckendorn rediscovered it, or if it's
> stated clearly in the literature somewhere and I'd just missed it.
>
All the more interesting that the course Prof. Heckendorn teaches
<http://marvin.cs.uidaho.edu/Teaching/CS445/> seems to be, well, rather
unambiguous.

It was certainly implicit in the literature.  "Factoring" was distinguished
> as a special type of ambiguity, so by implication there are factorings and
> non-factorings.
>
Well, nobody has had tools to try that in practice I think.


>
>
> -- jeffrey
>
>
> On 07/25/2014 03:31 AM, rns wrote:
>
> Messed up the link, sorry, this one works:
> http://marvin.cs.uidaho.edu/Teaching/CS445/grammar.html
>
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 1:29:59 PM UTC+3, rns wrote:
>>
>>  http://marvin.cs.uidaho.edu/Teaching/CS445/grammar.htm— that is. Very
>> gentle and informal, but dense and informative, covering (E)BNF,
>> precedence, associativity, ambiguity, tips for grammar writing and useful
>> examples.
>>
>>  What I find both useful and amusing:
>>
>>  (1) the grammar syntax is nearly SLIF, sans the angle brackets; so
>>
>>  (1a) examples can be fed to Marpa::R2::Scanless::G almost as they are;
>> but
>>
>>  (1b) 'grammar' is not described as a thing that can be used easily to
>> 'parse', e.g.:
>>
>>  A grammar is used to specify the syntax of a language. It answers the
>>> question: What sentences are in the language and what are not?
>>
>>
>>  *Parse *is to show how a sentence could be built from a grammar
>>
>>
>>  A sure sign of pre-Marpa days when grammar were written mostly as a
>> specification for humans, as was frequently discussed in this group.
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "marpa parser" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "marpa parser" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"marpa parser" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to