|
By the end of the day I should have a rudimentary implementation of GLoRy, my GLR parser.
GLR is the most powerful parsing algorithm known. It allows you to express your grammar however you want with never any conflicts (all "conflicts" make the GLR fork its stack and try each conflicting rule)
It can process highly ambiguous grammars, including natural language!
The tables are only LALR(1) sized, and how fast it is is inversely proportional to how many times it has been forked. This is all very very good, as it leads to linear time O(n) parsing when there are no ambiguities/forks
Also this is the only GLR implementation i've seen capable of streaming. The rest force you to load the entire document into memory at once.
The upshot of that is you could feed it an entire Bible and not worry about memory.
If there is a parser generator to end all parser generators its this.
It only has one real disadvantage and that's that it's more difficult to use depending on how you're using it. Since it can return multiple parse trees for a single parse the code to use it has to be able to handle that.
Anyway, GLoRy is peak parsing. If you can't parse it with GLoRy chances are it can't be parsed. =)
So cool!
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
"It's Alive!!!"[^] 
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
phil.o wrote: "It's Alive!!!"[^]
Hands up anyone who didn't immediately think of this!
Damn modern technology! These LED torches won't burn anything down!
Pitchforks still work, though, so we'll have to make do.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It feels a bit like that. Plus a GLR parser is essentially a bunch of LR parsers stitched together so maybe it's fitting
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
 for the patchwork anyway.
Let's hope stitches will hold 
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds intriguing!
Further, my energy is up lately, might play with that!
Keep up the good work and enthusiasm!
|
|
|
|
|
It's parsing but I need to put in error recovery and do more debugging. Then I can refactor it and add the actual code generation. The whole thing should take me no more than a week (*knock on wood*)
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
No hurry!
Sounds interesting!
Next step is write a book about it!
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! Anyway I'm glad you're feeling better.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
<Looks for pitchfork>
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The trophy would not fit in the suitcase because it was too big" would render one parse tree.
However, semantic analysis - which is not what my parser does would be further processing on that tree. Because of the final "it", semantic analysis would yield two trees, one where "it" referred to the trophy, and one where "it" referred to the suitcase - it if worked like my parser does.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
well.. I doubt you can really parse human language like that...
a natural language parser should cater for spelling mistake, grammar mistake, forgotten words, puns....
|
|
|
|
|
Parsing is one thing. Semantic analysis is a whole different story.
That said, GLR was actually invented to process natural language.
So yes, given a proper grammar (which would include a vocabulary) it would parse it, no matter how ambiguous.
It simply returns every possible tree from that parse.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
okay then!
just a little step on the way!
|
|
|
|
|
I see: [^]
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Country watering hole surrounded by historical object (8)
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Barbados?
I can only justify some of the solution though, so not confident...
|
|
|
|
|
I am curious on your some of the justification.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Barbados = Country
Bar (as in pub) = watering hole
Now this next bit was reeeaaaallly stretching it:
Dos = historical object (as in MS DOS)
Hence the lack of confidence!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow nice, I liked the MS dos analogy.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Republic
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Got me while I was typing it!
Well done, I suspect you are up tomorrow.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than my lousy attempt 
|
|
|
|
|
We have a winner.
So you are up tomorrow.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
