Re: Parsers for extensible grammars?

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded, comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Parsers for extensible grammars?
Date	2014-10-26 15:29 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<m2ji3j$9a3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<m28vlb$lum$1@speranza.aioe.org> <m2gn3b$lpv$2@dont-email.me> <m2gpa1$tcr$1@dont-email.me> <m2gps1$12c$1@dont-email.me> <544d49cd$0$15849$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/26/2014 3:21 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <m2gps1$12c$1@dont-email.me>, rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most people find the use of the stack to be a problem for them while it
>> is really no big deal.  It's just different.  Forth has other issues
>> which relate to the fact that not so many people use it.  But it seems
>> to be a very useful tool to me.
>
> I'm inclined to say that a stack works purely sequential, and and
> infix notation with high priority operators and brackets. give
> much more of a visual clue about what is intended.
> a*b+c*d (after training) groups things together.
> For
>      a b * c d * +
> the question "what is the first term of the addition?" is indeed
> slightly harder to answer. You have to think, the visual system
> doesn't help you here.

Really?  You can't see the bias from your early education where you 
learned to use parentheses?  I can clearly pick out the terms from your 
example.  If you asked about a more complex equation, then yes, postfix 
would not be as clear.  But that is a very tiny part of Forth and I have 
yet to find it to be a problem.  When I have an equation much more 
complex than the example you give I usually break it down into simpler 
pieces anyway no matter the language.

-- 

Rick

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 14:23 -0400
  Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-26 00:50 -0500
  Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-26 19:21 +0000
    Re: Parsers for extensible grammars? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 15:29 -0400

csiph-web