On Feb 26, 5:37 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I was hoping someone might have done it, [Write a grammar for Mathematica]
as the task seems
> non-trivial. Did you write one for MockMMA, and if so are you willing
> to share it?
1. I (with a student) looked at the task and wrote a partial grammar
On 26 February 2011 04:32, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 25, 4:28 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Of course, creating the BNF is a non-trivial task, but it seems the
>> descriptions of most languages don't actually include a BNF.
>
> I think you can find a formal grammar for almost every computer
> progra
On Feb 25, 4:28 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> Of course, creating the BNF is a non-trivial task, but it seems the
> descriptions of most languages don't actually include a BNF.
I think you can find a formal grammar for almost every computer
programming language except for Mathematica, which presum
On 25 February 2011 23:30, David Kirkby wrote:
> Do you think lex and yacc could be suitably employed for the task?
> These are quite nice in that they are included in most operating
> systems (there are versions for Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX
> ... etc etc). If I recall correctly, Richa
On 26 February 2011 00:05, rjf wrote:
> Should you (Ira) bother to respond?
> I don't care.
> RJF
It would be good if Ira did respond, but given your attitude (use of
the word liar for example), who could blame if he did not? I certainly
would not blame him.
Dave
--
To post to this group, sen
On Feb 25, 1:36 pm, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> It is clear that Fateman with no evidence insulted our ability to
> parse Mathematica,
> as well as our character. It should be clear that we can parse it
> just fine.
> You can decide about our character.
>
> Mr. Fateman does not apparantly understand
On 25 February 2011 21:36, Ira Baxter wrote:
>> > > Here are my suggestions:
>>
>> > > 1. The guy is lying. He doesn't really have a Mathematica parser that
>> > > works.
>
> It is clear that Fateman with no evidence insulted our ability to
> parse Mathematica,
> as well as our character. It sho
On Feb 25, 10:36 am, rjf wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:57 pm, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 11:37 am, rjf wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 9:17 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> > > > > On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
> > > [snip]. The real
On 25 February 2011 17:02, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2:48 am, Ira Baxter wrote:
>> Part of this discussion started because Dave suggested that
>> writing and maintaining a hand-written parser was harder
>> than a parser-generator one, and consequently that Wolfram
>> probably didn't write a pa
On Feb 25, 4:55 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
> Wolfram is a bright guy, so I concluded (perhaps incorrectly), he
> would have done it the easiest way possible.
That would be to ask someone else to do it.
> I got the impression that
> would have been to use pre-written tools for the lexical anal
On Feb 25, 2:48 am, Ira Baxter wrote:
> On Feb 25, 3:05 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> > On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> > > Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
> > > a hand-written parser to do it.
>
> > > Ira D. Baxter, CTO
> > > Semantic Designs, Inc
On Feb 25, 1:05 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> > Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
> > a hand-written parser to do it.
No, you don't. It is sufficient to mess with the grammar and augments
to
do essentially any program a
On Feb 24, 9:57 pm, Ira Baxter wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:37 am, rjf wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:17 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> > > > On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
> > [snip]. The real difficulty is
> > > >> to implement a Mathematic
On Feb 25, 6:55 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 25 February 2011 10:48, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 3:05 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> >> On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> >> > Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
> >> > a hand-written parser to do it.
>
On 25 February 2011 10:48, Ira Baxter wrote:
> On Feb 25, 3:05 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
>>
>> > Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
>> > a hand-written parser to do it.
>>
>> > Ira D. Baxter, CTO
>> > Semantic Designs, Inc
On Feb 25, 3:05 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
>
> > Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
> > a hand-written parser to do it.
>
> > Ira D. Baxter, CTO
> > Semantic Designs, Inc.
Part of this discussion started because Dave suggest
On 25 February 2011 05:57, Ira Baxter wrote:
> Mathematica is otherwise not hard to parse, and you don't need
> a hand-written parser to do it.
>
> Ira D. Baxter, CTO
> Semantic Designs, Inc.
Thank you Ira for clarifying this.
(For the record, I contacted Ira off-list and asked him to respond t
It was late and I transcribed the wrong shell output.
Here is the parse of Fatemans' example.
C:\DMS\Domains\Mathematica\Tools\Parser\Source>type "C:\DMS\Domains
\Mathematica\Examples\Fateman.m"
r[s[]]
C:\DMS\Domains\Mathematica\Tools\Parser\Source>run ../domainparser +
+AST "C:\DMS\Domains\Math
On Feb 23, 11:37 am, rjf wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:17 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>
> > On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> > > On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
> [snip]. The real difficulty is
> > >> to implement a Mathematica language parser, since the language
> > >> fails to fit
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:29 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Ivan Andrus wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > (RJF) I know of no other programming language that requires this.
>>
>> C++0x will require something similar for templates, so that
>>
>> std::vector> x;
>>
>> will parse instead of requiring
>>
>
On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Ivan Andrus wrote:
>
> > (RJF) I know of no other programming language that requires this.
>
> C++0x will require something similar for templates, so that
>
> std::vector> x;
>
> will parse instead of requiring
>
> std::vector > x;
>
> That said, I don't think many people c
On Feb 23, 2011, at 6:37 PM, rjf wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:17 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
>> On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>> On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
A parser for the maxima language is not only easier to write,
it is available in source form. It is also based o
On Feb 23, 9:17 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
> >> A parser for the maxima language is not only easier to write,
> >> it is available in source form. It is also based on a well known
> >> technique which i
On 02/22/11 10:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
A parser for the maxima language is not only easier to write,
it is available in source form. It is also based on a well known
technique which is also used by Reduce. The real difficulty is
to implement a Mathematica
On 02/22/11 03:49 PM, rjf wrote:
A parser for the maxima language is not only easier to write,
it is available in source form. It is also based on a well known
technique which is also used by Reduce. The real difficulty is
to implement a Mathematica language parser, since the language
fails to fi
> While I assume that some people at WRI may be observing the Sage
Yes, I can definitely confirm this.
> activity, I doubt that they feel Sage breathing down their necks.
I agree - so far. But it was amazing how many visitors we had at the
JMM booth talking about doing an institutional switch. I
A parser for the maxima language is not only easier to write,
it is available in source form. It is also based on a well known
technique which is also used by Reduce. The real difficulty is
to implement a Mathematica language parser, since the language
fails to fit the standard expectations for com
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:37 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2:00 am, Eviatar wrote:
>> I've noticed this too. I wonder if they purposely implemented Sage
>> syntax or if it's just a very comprehensive parser.
>
> I think the goal is to understand any natural syntax for many
> questions, and
On Feb 21, 2:00 am, Eviatar wrote:
> I've noticed this too. I wonder if they purposely implemented Sage
> syntax or if it's just a very comprehensive parser.
I think the goal is to understand any natural syntax for many
questions, and certainly this syntax is relatively unambiguous, and
pretty
I've noticed this too. I wonder if they purposely implemented Sage
syntax or if it's just a very comprehensive parser.
On Feb 20, 7:40 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> I noticed a couple of things on sage-devel recently about integration
> with Maxima. It appears Maxima can't do either of these two. (We
30 matches
Mail list logo
