On 10/22/10 5:44 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2010 11:29:07 Joel de Guzman wrote:
On 10/22/10 4:17 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2010 09:58:25 Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/22/2010 12:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/21/2010 7:09 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
Check out the doc I sent (Annex A). It's really, to my mind,
generic languages -- abstraction of rules and templated grammars
through metanotions and hyper-rules.
Parameterized rules. Yes, I can understand that much. My
understanding stops when I try to imagine how to build a parser
that recognizes a grammar with parameterized rules.
And I can't understand how expression templates relate to parsing.
It doesn't in any practical sense, really. No parsing ever happens in
Proto. The C++ compiler parses expressions for us and builds the tree.
Proto grammars are patterns that match trees. (It is in this sense
they're closer to schemata, not grammars that drive parsers.)
They're called "grammars" in Proto not because they drive the parsing
but because they describe the valid syntax for your embedded language.
Ok, this formulation makes it much clearer :)
It's just the metaphor! And what I saying is that you will get into
confusion land if you mix metaphors from different domains. Proto uses
the parsing domain and it makes sense (*). It may (and I say may) be
possible to extend that metaphor and in the end it may be possible
to incorporate that into proto instead of phoenix (if it is indeed
conceptually understandable and reusable) --an opportunity that may
be missed if you shut the door and dismiss the idea prematurely.
It is OK to switch metaphors and have a clean cut. But again,
my point is: use only one metaphor. Don't mix and match ad-hoc.
(* regardless if it doesn't do any parsing at all!)
Makes sense. Letting the idea of two level grammars sinking in ... I still
have problems to adapt it to the parameterized semantic actions solution we
I don't think 2-level grammars include semantic actions. Attribute
grammars include (semantic)actions while 2-level grammars include
parameterized rules and generic reusable grammars (plus more). To
my mind though, in a conceptual POV, a semantic action is just
an epsilon node in the grammar and is indistinguishable from any
other. In Spirit, for example, it's just a node like any other
parser node. The main difference is that it is a generator instead
of a consumer; but that too is an arbitrary distinction.
Joel de Guzman
proto mailing list