On 10/22/10 3:15 PM, 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.
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.
And that *is* the essence of it.
Cheers,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net
_______________________________________________
proto mailing list
proto@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
