On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:19:22AM -0700, Ron Smith wrote:
> 
> Scott, it is "bad form" to post code that you have not tested.  I copied 
> the above verbatim into an editor and every line in your test data 
> causes an "error" message.  Moreover, there is nothing in your grammar 
> that handles "comments".

Hmmm. I had tested the code before sending, and it worked fine. I know
better than to post untested code. 

> 
> Second if you really want help, telling the potential helper to go "ex 
> R3 Up" themselves is also not particularly helpful. Ex R3 up to you 
> too... "Ex R3 io" for the horse you rode in on.

cute....

> 
> But assuming that you meant this somewhat in jest and that your mother 
> didn't raise you to have enough sense to be gracious, I'll provide a few 
> bread crumbs.

Whoa. What I said was that, if my post was in bad form,
you were free to tell _me_ 'ex R3 up'. I was trying to be gracious in
apologising in advance for intruding into the world of experts. Viz:

>>I've tried to distill the grammar down for this post, but again, I
>>apologize if it is too long to digest. If you don't like it, you can
>>                                                             ^^^
>>say, in our full grammar: ex R3 up.

Please read before ranting. And you can leave my mother out of this,
thanks.

> Second, it seems that what you want to parse is inherently ambiguous 
> because there is no obvious difference between "n mu" and "nm" when you 
> discount white space.

Right....

> 
> Fundamentally you need to decide if white-space is part of your
> grammar. 

As is evident from my question, it is.

> If so, then what will help to disambiguate this case is a look-ahead 
> that comprehends the white-space.  If white space is not truly required, 
> than what you need is still a look-ahead, but something that parses 
> ahead to see if the "other" case is what *will* happen.

I guess I was asking for the 'look-ahead that comprehends
white-space'. I always thought a grammar was handed 'tokens',
notjustawholebunchofstuffglommedtogetherinonestream;guessIwaswrong.

> 
> However, in general, designing ambiguous grammars is something to
> avoid.

Fruit flies like a banana.

Thanks for the crumbs,
Scott.

Reply via email to