On 2009-10-22 14:44, Robert Atkey wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 20:12 +0200, Ben Franksen wrote:
Since 'some' is defined recursively, this creates an infinite production for
numbers that you can neither print nor otherwise analyse in finite time.
Yes, sorry, I should have been more careful
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 20:12 +0200, Ben Franksen wrote:
Since 'some' is defined recursively, this creates an infinite production for
numbers that you can neither print nor otherwise analyse in finite time.
Yes, sorry, I should have been more careful there. One has to be careful
to handle EDSLs
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 21:54 +0200, Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Next thing I'll try is to transform such a grammar into an actual
parser...
Which I also managed to get working. However, this exposed yet another
problem I am not sure how to solve.
Another option is to not use a
This problem of dynamically transforming grammars and bulding parsers
out of it is addressed in:
@inproceedings{1411296,
author = {Viera, Marcos and Swierstra, S. Doaitse and Lempsink,
Eelco},
title = {Haskell, do you read me?: constructing and composing
efficient top-down parsers at
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 06:29:58PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 11, 2009, at 18:00 , Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Next thing I'll try is to transform such a grammar into an actual
parser...
Which I also managed to get working.
First, before
Ben Franksen wrote:
Next thing I'll try is to transform such a grammar into an actual
parser...
Which I also managed to get working. However, this exposed yet another
problem I am not sure how to solve.
The problem manifests itself with non-left-factored rules like
Number ::= Digit Number |
Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Next thing I'll try is to transform such a grammar into an actual
parser...
Which I also managed to get working.
First, before all this talking to myself here is boring you to death, please
shout and I'll go away. Anyway, at least one person has
On Oct 11, 2009, at 18:00 , Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Ben Franksen wrote:
Next thing I'll try is to transform such a grammar into an actual
parser...
Which I also managed to get working.
First, before all this talking to myself here is boring you to
death, please
shout and
Robert Atkey wrote:
A deep embedding of a parsing DSL (really a context-sensitive grammar
DSL) would look something like the following. I think I saw something
like this in the Agda2 code somewhere, but I stumbled across it when I
was trying to work out what free applicative functors were.
minh thu wrote:
2009/10/7 Günther Schmidt gue.schm...@web.de:
I've informally argued that a true DSL -- separate from a good API --
should have semantic characteristics of a language: binding forms,
control structures, abstraction, composition. Some have type systems.
That is one
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Ben Franksen
But isn't one of the advantages of an _E_DSL that we can use the host
language (Haskell) as a meta or macro language for the DSL?
Substantially so. I've used brief examples where the EDSL syntax is
basically the data declaration (perhaps with some
2009/10/7 Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de:
minh thu wrote:
2009/10/7 Günther Schmidt gue.schm...@web.de:
I've informally argued that a true DSL -- separate from a good API --
should have semantic characteristics of a language: binding forms,
control structures, abstraction, composition.
Ben Franksen skrev:
minh thu wrote:
2009/10/7 Günther Schmidt gue.schm...@web.de:
I've informally argued that a true DSL -- separate from a good API --
should have semantic characteristics of a language: binding forms,
control structures, abstraction, composition. Some have type systems.
13 matches
Mail list logo
