On 10/21/2010 7:09 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote: > Check out the doc I sent (Annex A). It's really, to my mind, > generic languages -- abstraction of rules and templated grammars > through metanotions and hyper-rules.
Parameterized rules. Yes, I can understand that much. My understanding stops when I try to imagine how to build a parser that recognizes a grammar with parameterized rules. > I have this strong feeling that > that's the intent of Thomas and your recent designs. Essentially, > making the phoenix language a metanotion in itself that can be > extended post-hoc through generic means. I don't think that's what Thomas and I are doing. vW-grammars change the descriptive power of grammars. But we don't need more descriptive grammars. Thomas and I aren't changing the grammar of Phoenix at all. We're just plugging in different actions. The grammar is unchanged. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto