On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:15:15PM +, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 23:08:01 UTC, Casper Færgemand wrote:
> >On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 16:37:06 UTC, MakersF wrote:
> >>Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able to only
> >>define a finit
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 23:08:01 UTC, Casper Færgemand
wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 16:37:06 UTC, MakersF wrote:
Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able
to only define a finite number of programs?
a* seems pretty infinite to me. :P
(0|1)*
Just define your la
On 08/07/2015 01:07 AM, "Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?=
" wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 16:37:06 UTC, MakersF wrote:
Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able to only
define a finite number of programs?
a* seems pretty infinite to me. :P
And any grammar defining
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 16:37:06 UTC, MakersF wrote:
Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able to
only define a finite number of programs?
a* seems pretty infinite to me. :P
On 06/08/15 20:14, deadalnix wrote:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454/672906
I don't have so much of a choice. TextMate supports what it supports.
There are TextMate grammars for very many languages, so it's not a
problem of not being able to represent a language grammar in TextMate. I
jus
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 16:08:24 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 14:50:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate
bundle. If we take the add expression as an example. It's
defined like this in the grammar:
AddExpression:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 14:50:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate
bundle. If we take the add expression as an example. It's
defined like this in the grammar:
AddExpression:
MulExpression
AddExpression + MulExpression
AddE
On 06/08/15 10:26, MakersF wrote:
Then your best shot is to approximate the grammar with the regual
expressions you have access to. You'll get to a point where some
constructs can not be correctly represented; at that point you should
probably write a regex which produces what the grammar produc
On 06-Aug-2015 11:26, MakersF wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 18:22:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 02/08/15 19:15, Xinok wrote:
I guess you're not familiar with the theoretical aspect of "formal
languages". The D grammar is a context-free grammar which cannot be
reduced to a regular expre
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 18:22:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 02/08/15 19:15, Xinok wrote:
I guess you're not familiar with the theoretical aspect of
"formal
languages". The D grammar is a context-free grammar which
cannot be
reduced to a regular expression. As cym13 stated, there are
so
On 02/08/15 19:15, Xinok wrote:
I guess you're not familiar with the theoretical aspect of "formal
languages". The D grammar is a context-free grammar which cannot be
reduced to a regular expression. As cym13 stated, there are some simple
context-free grammars which can be rewritten as regular e
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 17:33:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 02/08/15 18:37, MakersF wrote:
Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able
to only
define a finite number of programs?
I don't know how this work, that's why I'm asking. But I read
something about left recur
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 17:29:57 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 02/08/15 18:08, cym13 wrote:
You can't build a regular expression for any grammar. You can
for some
grammars but those are only a simple subset. For example,
checking
parens balance is impossible with common (not recursive)
re
On 02/08/15 18:37, MakersF wrote:
Of course it's recursive! Do you want the grammar to be able to only
define a finite number of programs?
I don't know how this work, that's why I'm asking. But I read something
about left recursion needs to be removed to be able to parse a grammar,
at least
On 02/08/15 18:08, cym13 wrote:
You can't build a regular expression for any grammar. You can for some
grammars but those are only a simple subset. For example, checking
parens balance is impossible with common (not recursive) regular
expressions only, and even with recursion it soon reaches its
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 14:50:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate
bundle. If we take the add expression as an example. It's
defined like this in the grammar:
AddExpression:
MulExpression
AddExpression + MulExpression
AddE
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 14:50:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate
bundle. If we take the add expression as an example. It's
defined like this in the grammar:
AddExpression:
MulExpression
AddExpression + MulExpression
AddE
On Sunday, 2 August 2015 at 14:50:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate
bundle. If we take the add expression as an example. It's
defined like this in the grammar:
AddExpression:
MulExpression
AddExpression + MulExpression
AddE
I'm trying to read the D grammar [1] to enhance the D TextMate bundle.
If we take the add expression as an example. It's defined like this in
the grammar:
AddExpression:
MulExpression
AddExpression + MulExpression
AddExpression - MulExpression
CatExpression
And like this in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
