|
I didn't tell you to use it, I'm just looking for problems. 
|
|
|
|
|
public static int Run(int[][] prog,LexContext input)
{
input.EnsureStarted();
int i,match=-1;
_Fiber[] currentFibers, nextFibers, tmp;
int currentFiberCount=0, nextFiberCount=0;
int[] pc;
int sp=0;
var sb = new StringBuilder(64);
int[] saved, matched;
saved = new int[2];
currentFibers = new _Fiber[prog.Length];
nextFibers = new _Fiber[prog.Length];
_EnqueueFiber(ref currentFiberCount, ref currentFibers, new _Fiber(prog,0, saved), 0);
matched = null;
var cur = -1;
if (LexContext.EndOfInput != input.Current)
{
var ch1 = unchecked((char)input.Current);
if (char.IsHighSurrogate(ch1))
{
if (-1 == input.Advance())
throw new ExpectingException("Expecting low surrogate in unicode stream. The input source is corrupt or not valid Unicode", input.Line, input.Column, input.Position, input.FileOrUrl);
var ch2 = unchecked((char)input.Current);
cur = char.ConvertToUtf32(ch1, ch2);
}
else
cur = ch1;
}
while(0<currentFiberCount)
{
bool passed = false;
for (i = 0; i < currentFiberCount; ++i)
{
var t = currentFibers[i];
pc = t.Program[t.Index];
saved = t.Saved;
switch (pc[0])
{
case Compiler.Switch:
var idx = 1;
while(idx<pc.Length && -2<pc[idx])
{
if (_InRanges(pc, ref idx, cur))
{
while (-1!=pc[idx])
++idx;
++idx;
passed = true;
_EnqueueFiber(ref nextFiberCount, ref nextFibers, new _Fiber(t, pc[idx], saved), sp + 1);
idx = pc.Length;
break;
}
else
{
while (-1!=pc[idx])
++idx;
++idx;
}
++idx;
}
if(idx<pc.Length&&-2==pc[idx])
{
++idx;
while(idx<pc.Length)
{
_EnqueueFiber(ref currentFiberCount, ref currentFibers, new _Fiber(t, pc[idx], saved), sp);
++idx;
}
}
break;
case Compiler.Char:
if (cur!= pc[1])
{
break;
}
goto case Compiler.Any;
case Compiler.Set:
idx = 1;
if (!_InRanges(pc,ref idx, cur))
{
break;
}
goto case Compiler.Any;
case Compiler.NSet:
idx = 1;
if (_InRanges(pc, ref idx,cur))
{
break;
}
goto case Compiler.Any;
case Compiler.UCode:
var str = char.ConvertFromUtf32(cur);
if (unchecked((int)char.GetUnicodeCategory(str,0) != pc[1]))
{
break;
}
goto case Compiler.Any;
case Compiler.NUCode:
str = char.ConvertFromUtf32(cur);
if (unchecked((int)char.GetUnicodeCategory(str,0)) == pc[1])
{
break;
}
goto case Compiler.Any;
case Compiler.Any:
if (LexContext.EndOfInput==input.Current)
{
break;
}
passed = true;
_EnqueueFiber(ref nextFiberCount, ref nextFibers, new _Fiber(t, t.Index+1, saved), sp+1);
break;
case Compiler.Match:
matched = saved;
match = pc[1];
i = currentFiberCount;
break;
}
}
if (passed)
{
sb.Append(char.ConvertFromUtf32(cur));
input.Advance();
if (LexContext.EndOfInput != input.Current)
{
var ch1 = unchecked((char)input.Current);
if (char.IsHighSurrogate(ch1))
{
input.Advance();
if (-1 == input.Advance())
throw new ExpectingException("Expecting low surrogate in unicode stream. The input source is corrupt or not valid Unicode", input.Line, input.Column, input.Position, input.FileOrUrl);
++sp;
var ch2 = unchecked((char)input.Current);
cur = char.ConvertToUtf32(ch1, ch2);
}
else
cur = ch1;
}
else
cur = -1;
++sp;
}
tmp = currentFibers;
currentFibers = nextFibers;
nextFibers = tmp;
currentFiberCount = nextFiberCount;
nextFiberCount = 0;
}
if (null!=matched)
{
var start = matched[0];
var len = matched[1];
input.CaptureBuffer.Append(sb.ToString(start, len - start));
return match;
};
return -1;
}
static void _EnqueueFiber(ref int lcount,ref _Fiber[] l, _Fiber t, int sp)
{
if(l.Length<=lcount)
{
var newarr = new _Fiber[l.Length * 2];
Array.Copy(l, 0, newarr, 0, l.Length);
l = newarr;
}
l[lcount] = t;
++lcount;
var pc = t.Program[t.Index];
switch (pc[0])
{
case Compiler.Jmp:
for (var j = 1; j < pc.Length; j++)
_EnqueueFiber(ref lcount,ref l, new _Fiber(t.Program, pc[j],t.Saved),sp);
break;
case Compiler.Save:
var slot = pc[1];
var max = slot > t.Saved.Length ? slot : t.Saved.Length;
var saved = new int[max];
for (var i = 0;i<t.Saved.Length;++i)
saved[i]=t.Saved[i];
saved[slot] = sp;
_EnqueueFiber(ref lcount,ref l, new _Fiber(t,t.Index+1, saved), sp);
break;
}
}
private struct _Fiber
{
public readonly int[][] Program;
public readonly int Index;
public int[] Saved;
public _Fiber(int[][] program, int index,int[] saved)
{
Program = program;
Index = index;
Saved = saved;
}
public _Fiber(_Fiber fiber, int index,int[] saved)
{
Program = fiber.Program;
Index = index;
Saved = saved;
}
}
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, no wonder then, you're doing it on purpose... 
|
|
|
|
|
Doing what on purpose? I'm a little slow this morning.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Spawning loads of fibers.
Or is this auto generated code again?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not on purpose per se. I mean yes, I'm spawning a lot of them, but the idea is to keep as few active or "alive" at one time as possible.
when I see a jmp with 3 operands it spawns 2 fibers in addition to a primary fiber.
That's what I don't want, since every fiber has to examine the character under the cursor which leads to many examinations of the same character. There's no way to optimize this out because it's rather the point of the fiber running in the first place. Multiple examinations are a byproduct of the NFA algorithm.
My goal is simply to reduce/eliminate the amount of jmps and especially the number of operands they have.
A pure DFA can run by examining each character only once.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is the Lounge.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It makes my head spin because it explains every line of code I ever wrote so clearly, and makes it unnecessary to write code in the future 
«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
|
|
|
|
|
Plus: it doesn't need any icon anymore.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
Every word of that article made total sense!
However, combined into sentences they became completely meaningless to me ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote: The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions.
The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
If results are good, it will be accepted gratefully -- there's a lot of other research that will profit from it -- so try to avoid saying anything that might be taken as being antagonistic toward others who have spent chunks of their lives working on different models.
BTW, you did notice that this is a programming message board, didn't you? Just because computer types stick the word "quantum" in front of everything, these days, doesn't mean they're into the Physics (just like the prevalence of the word "cloud" doesn't mean we know anything about meteorology, and "artificial intelligence" doesn't mean we've got any brains).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: "artificial intelligence" doesn't mean we've got any brains).
There speaks a man who has visited QA!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: There speaks a man who has visited QA!
And came the closest he's ever come to breaking the four-minute mile, immediately afterward.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: BTW, you did notice that this is a programming message board, didn't you?
Oh, you mean a bunch of geeks that even when it's safe out still avoid socializing in real life talking about flu/corona etc viruses spread by human to human contact??
The intelligence may not be artificial, but the [keyboard warrior] bravado often is.
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's thermodynamic systems modelling and satellite trajectories I've been programming for the last 20 years so I guess to me it figures.
A little piece of mind if anyone cares for my two cents. If we only criticize based on speculation and not in-depth knowledge ie failing to provide constructive grounds for conversation, then we fall in a dark infinite loop of self-admiration. Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid. The science and engineering discipline we have chosen, since we are here on CP, should have taught us by itterations of education or training that progress and achievement is a life-time process. I'd rather be more humble when dealing with things I don't quite understand yet and then be even more humble when I have mastered them and I have to express my opinion in public.
modified 2-Feb-20 14:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anyone criticising the article (which is normally my remit, so think yourself lucky that it's something I'm into), so I'm unsure why you went off on that tangent.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions.
The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
That is simply wrong. What the model proposes eliminates the weak and strong forces as it describes them to be a result of lepton rotation with angular velocity near the speed of light. The gravity measured is described in Special Relativity. Finally, instead of 15 fundamental particles described by the Standard Model, this model proposes only five.
modified 2-Feb-20 16:44pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote: The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote: That is simply wrong.
It's simply wrong that other people will try to verify the findings, or simply wrong that they even try to verify the findings?
You know what?
I have no idea what you're talking about, half the time -- not because I don't know any Physics, but because you leap from topic to topic and perspective to perspective with no rhyme nor reason, and with no bridges between them.
I've never known someone so good at talking cross-purpose. In two replies, you've managed to talk -- quite aggressively, mind -- about five things that have nothing to do with what you were replying to.
You really want to work on that. Being hard to understand alienates people, as does ignoring what people say and going off on your own tangent, and it's really not hard to communicate simply and efficiently.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No, wrong is the assumption that the model is another statistical tool and non-confrontational to the standard model. While in fact it is fundamentally a whole new theory that if proven correct (by what you correctly describe as validation) will replace the Standard Model.
Quote: It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions.
I am sorry you cannot follow my train of thought. Please note that my responses to you are simply in the spirit of your own reply.
|
|
|
|
|
I meant expressing one's opinions to other people in a confrontational manner.
i.e. (as was perfectly clear, when I wrote it the first time), it's not "The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model", it's just "The Rotating Lepton Model".
If you play the "I'm smarter than you!" card, you will not make many friends -- especially of people who are smarter than you.
And saying that it's not statistical modelling is pure fantasy.
Anyway, I'm bored with this, now, so I'll just enjoy the Lounge for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote: Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid.
In this cause, in a uniquely recursive manner, you are giving yours.
The tone and context of your post brands your comment, as politely as prudence and good taste allow, as conceited arrogance.
There are a good number of people in the CP lounge with a very lot of education in various areas of specialization - and the good taste not to arbitrarily share blurt out arbitrary facts to try to prove something (what?) to the rest of us.
And at the same time - do I not prove your point?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you do! That is correct. It is this very tone that I would love to see eliminated in a place where highly-intellectual people exchange views. And yes, I owe to the rest of the community an apology. So I am sincerely sorry, but I'm fed up with shallow and rushed sterile judgement.
modified 3-Feb-20 6:25am.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
