On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wrote: > 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.
And I can't understand how expression templates relate to parsing. > > 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. Exactly. Though, I think this is the hard part to wrap the head around. We have a grammar, and this very same grammar is used to describe "visitation". _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto