On 2010-01-29 01:09, Edward Kmett wrote:
Luke pretty much nailed the summary of what you can parse using Applicative
means. I tend to consider them codata CFGs, because they can have infinite
breadth and depth. However, a 'codata CFG' can handle a much larger class of
languages than CFGs. To
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I wonder if you can make a parser combinator library which is *not* monadic?
And, if you could, in what way would that limit the kinds of things you can
parse?
Absolutely! I believe
Edward Kmett wrote:
Luke pretty much nailed the summary of what you can parse using
Applicative means. I tend to consider them codata CFGs, because they
can have infinite breadth and depth. However, a 'codata CFG' can
handle a much larger class of languages than CFGs.
Aren't CFGs banned in
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
But now suppose that I want not just circles, but *anything* that can
possibly be reduced to line segments.
If all you know about it is that it can be reduced to line segments,
there is no loss of generality in
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I wonder if you can make a parser combinator library which is *not* monadic?
And, if you could, in what way would that limit the kinds of things you can
parse?
Absolutely! I believe both Applicatives and Arrows
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
I don't remember the name, but there is a technique where you compose
the features you want and then take its fixed point to get your AST.
Did you think of Data types à la carte by Wouter Swierstra?
On 2010-01-28 20:31, Luke Palmer wrote:
I could be mistaken, but at least there are both Applicative and Arrow
parser libraries. I don't know how to classify the language that they
parse -- it is not strictly context-free. It corresponds roughly to
context-free where certain types of infinite
Luke pretty much nailed the summary of what you can parse using Applicative
means. I tend to consider them codata CFGs, because they can have infinite
breadth and depth. However, a 'codata CFG' can handle a much larger class of
languages than CFGs. To that end, it is interesting to consider that
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nils Anders Danielsson n...@cs.nott.ac.uk
wrote:
If the token set is finite you don't get any expressive advantage from a
monadic parser combinator library (in a lazy setting): you can parse any
decidable language using a simple library with an applicative
