|
Ah, forgot about the Brazilians, they are not to be underestimated indeed 
|
|
|
|
|
So in my Rolex lexer reboot, I'm potentially adding a way to specify lexer rules using eXtensible Backus-Noir Form instead of regex (although you can also use regex)
My parsers already allow for this. But I'm thinking of including this feature in my lexer directly.
This creates a strange problem for me, wherein as soon as I add this feature my lexer documents fit the exact same format as my parser documents.
XBNF format.
So what?
Well, the what is that if you pass the same document to a parser that you pass to the lexer you'll get different results, and you shouldn't. You should get just the terminals rendered by the lexer generator. That way the parser can work with the lexer from the same spec document.
But if i pass one of these documents to my lexer, it will treat all of the elements as terminals! why would it not?
My options are to make a new file format specifically to distinguish between this one and XBNF, or to make Rolex only render parts of the XBNF document - the terminal parts. It's kind of counterintuitive that last bit, but it's the Right(TM) result.
*sigh*
Fortunately with the last option if you only use regex in it, none of the above matters. But if you start using BNF in it, it will get confused as to what's a terminal and what's not, forcing you to mark every terminal declaration with the terminal attribute.
I don't like that.
I might make a command line option to either force the document to be a lexer document, or to force it to be treated as a parser document.
This is confusing even to explain. There has to be a better way.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
BNF is a (data)normalization issue; how does this apply to lexers?
It has nothing to do with a regex. Thread carefully before you explain.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Backus Naur form is a format for describing textual data formats.
[ Optional ]
{ Repeat }
Alternation1 | Alternation2
(there are many variations)
Backus–Naur form - Wikipedia[^]
You can describe lexible expressions using it.
For example
Digit = "0"|"1"|"2"|"3"|"4"|"5"|"6"|"7"|"8"|"9"
Letter = "A"|"B"...
Although that sucks which is why i let you intermingle regex
Digit = '[0-9]'
Letter = '[A-Za-z]'
and then you can declare
LetterOrDigit = Letter | Digit
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Backus Naur form is a format for describing textual data formats.
I was preparing to take away a fiber from your thread.
Boyce–Codd normal form - Wikipedia[^].
In regexes, you rule, my Queen.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: In regexes, you rule, my Queen.
There is no truth to the rumor that I am Queen of the Lizard People.
*eats a bug*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Give my regards to Nakor 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddie, HTC,
BNF has a much wider, fascinating, usage in the history of modern logic, and, computer science: [^] Quote: The origin of BNF is not as important as its impact on programming language development. During the period immediately following the publication of the ALGOL 60 report BNF was the basis of many compiler-compiler systems. Some directly used BNF like "A Syntax Directed Compiler for ALGOL 60" developed by Edgar T. Irons and "A Compiler Building System" Developed by Brooker and Morris. Others changed it to a programming language. The Schorre Metacompilers made it a programming language with only a few changes. <class name=""> became symbol identifiers dropping the enclosing <,> and using quoted strings for symbols of the target language. Arithmetic like grouping provided simplification that removed using classes where grouping was its only value. The META II arithmetic expression rule shows grouping use. Output expressions placed in a META II rule are used to output code and labels in an assembly language. Rules in META II are equivalent to a class definitions in BNF. The Unix utility yacc is based on BNF with code production similar to META II. yacc is most commonly used as a parser generator, and its roots are obviously BNF. BNF today is one of the oldest computer-related languages still in use.
The way Panini nailed it some 2500+ years ago [^] fascinates me ... if i had another life, I'd study Sanskrit grammar.
«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
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: eXtensible Backus-Noir
This is a wonderful malapropism; I hope it was intentional !
imho, trying to make "one ring that rules them all" is generally a mistake ... unless you want to play Sargon.
cheers, Bill
«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
|
|
|
|
|
If you mean Backus-Noir vs Backus-Naur it was my fingers getting the better of me.
They type phonetically when I don't mind them.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a fan of Bacchus-Noir 
«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
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: phonetically
and, when the fingers don't know French.
«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
|
|
|
|
|
These fingers make a point to not know French.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: These fingers make a point to not know French.
Touché !
«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
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been coding some dark stuff lately. Do you know how challenging it can be to enumerate orcs?
They are remarkably uncooperative.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
For Group #1; those who...
- Currently have a YouTube Channel
- Started it on your own
- Cared and nurtured it single-handed
- Are actively and regularly engaged with it today
Your Question Is: What do you wish you had known before you started your YouTube channel ?
For Group #2, those who...
- Had a YouTube Channel in the past
- Started it on your own
- Were the only one responsible for it
- No longer have it
- You had a bad experience with it
Your Question Is: Name the #1 negative factor which caused it to be bad, and the #1 Positive factor which was missing.
For Group #3, those who...
- Do not have a YouTube channel
- Have a video channel on some other site
- It has been totally yours, i.e., Conception, Maintenance, etc.
Your Question Is: What led you to your decision ?
For Group #4, those who...
- Don't have any regular internet video channel at all
- Do have an internet video presence via some alternative venue
Your Question Is: What advantages does this give you over using the commercial site ?
For Group #5, those who...
- Have no internet video channel,
- But you do use YouTube And/Or other video sites as a viewer
Your Question Is: What are the two best and two worst things about the channels and the video clips you've seen ?
For Group #6, those who...
- Just say no to internet video; Of any kind / From any source / Via any site
Your Question Is: What keeps you away from internet video ?
|
|
|
|
|
Answer #6
They have to remain KSS.
|
|
|
|
|
Group 7; TL;DR.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Youtube covers a massively wide range of stuff, so I'm going to assume you are talking software development content rather than anything else.
For software tutorials, I hate videos. I have given up watching them entirely. (except Donald Knuths Christmas talks).
They just take too long and are too hard to navigate.
I guess, there are three specific use cases when I'll want explore content online:
1. I have a specific problem I want to solve. Example from yesterday - how do I pretty format numbers in javascript. Here, I want to find a quick to browse article, how-to, probably with some code snippets that I can steal and get back to my development. I don't want to watch a video of someone coding and explaining this. I can figure this out myself, but I'm going to copy and steal shamelessly rather than reinvent the wheel.
2. There is a library/language/framework/concept that I want to dig deeper into. Here, I'll go for written tutorials and actually work with it myself. (example from a couple of days ago - the lodash javascript library - quick web page, some data and start exploring the methods of interest while jumping around tutorials and documentation). If I found a video on this, it might spend the frist 5 minutes explaining basic data structures, apis, etc, etc. Too hard in a video to skip to the part I want. In an article, easy to jump to the bit of interest.
3. I'm browsing articles on code project. General knowledge improvement, and industry awareness. In 30 seconds, I can decide whether I want to read this article in more detail. Is the intro well written, scroll down, good images, quick look at the code snippets and article structure and I decide if it's worth continuing. 30 seconds into a video, I've had a tile, a presenter introduction, and acknowledgement of the sponsor, a plug for the channel and a request to upvote. Still no idea if the content is any good.
Sorry to be down on videos, they have their place for other things (DIY house/car/garden maintenance, etc), but not software.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm #5, but first a suggestion. If you want to do a channel, my personal impression is that software vids are a pile of steaming elephant poop. Never seen one that was useful, never seen one where the person making it
1) Knew anything about making videos.
And
2) Knew more than any of his audience about the subject he was covering.
I'm sure there are some, somewhere - but there is so much total cr@p that nobody can find it. And total dross gets upvoted and subscribed because ... well, I suspect money has changed hands ...
So if it's a software channel, probably forget it.
If it isn't, then watch people who do know how to make a video. I strongly recommend ThisOldTony who is a hobby machinist: The progression from "really dull" early vids to "really watchable" in the mid and later ones is worth observing, even if you have no interest in welding, turning, routing, filing, or biting your way through solid steel or aluminium. I own none of eh kit he does, and I'm never going to get any - but his enthusiasm and verve to entertain and inform means he's subscribed so I never miss a video. Work out what and how he makes a vid, and yours should be vastly better than if you set up a GoPro and start typing... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in Group #7, those who only use youtube for watching...- The occasional comedy clip.
- Clips linked to by other Lounge users.
- Masterchef Italia.
Other than that, I've got no use for it.
I wouldn't watch training on it, and I wouldn't create training for it.
And, believe it or not (99% 0f people wouldn't, apparently), I don't like "funny cat videos".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to find something other people like that you don't like never works. That's called a job.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
| #6
«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
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
