On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Andrew Robbins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stefan, > > Also, that grammar doesn't support inf/nan. > Yep, it also lacks a separate production for rationals; I guess I should have noted explicitly that the similarity supports changing *something* about the structure of the COMPLEX lexeme in the grammar. > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Edwards <[email protected]> > wrote: > > There is also the grammar as it is laid out in TSPL3: > > > > http://scheme.com/tspl3/grammar.html#./grammar:h0 > > > > Which is similar to what Mr. Robbin's wrote above, save for hoisting the > '+' > > & '-' rules into the complex production above. > > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Andrew Robbins scripsit: > >> > >> > On a more serious note, is there any harm in rewriting > >> > the current syntax a little more clearly? For example: > >> > >> I like this proposal. I have asked a friend of mine who knows how to > >> use proof engines to see if this grammar is equivalent to the existing > >> grammar. > >> > >> -- > >> John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > >> Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions. > >> Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about > >> to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Scheme-reports mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ==== > > Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? > > A. No. > -- ==== Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? A. No.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
