Newest at the top
2024-05-13 16:36:55 +0200 | hueso | (~root@user/hueso) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
2024-05-13 16:36:03 +0200 | <ski> | dmj` : amusing |
2024-05-13 16:30:53 +0200 | <ski> | "Specifying Filler-Gap Dependency Parsers in a Linear-Logic Programming Language" in 1992 at <https://repository.upenn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5d453ced-e21d-46a5-9935-3f403a32b5a6/content>,"A Linear Logic Treatment of Phrase Structure Grammars For Unbounded Dependencies" in 1997-09 at <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/3-540-48975-4_8.pdf>, both by Joshua S. Hodas |
2024-05-13 16:20:58 +0200 | lisbeths | (uid135845@id-135845.lymington.irccloud.com) |
2024-05-13 16:13:56 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) |
2024-05-13 16:13:14 +0200 | danse-nr3 | (~danse-nr3@an-19-162-214.service.infuturo.it) |
2024-05-13 16:07:28 +0200 | hueso | (~root@user/hueso) |
2024-05-13 16:07:01 +0200 | xdminsy | (~xdminsy@117.147.70.240) |
2024-05-13 16:06:14 +0200 | xdminsy | (~xdminsy@117.147.70.240) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2024-05-13 16:05:05 +0200 | zzz_ | zzz |
2024-05-13 16:04:58 +0200 | zzz | (~yin@user/zero) (Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by zzz_))) |
2024-05-13 16:04:33 +0200 | zzz_ | (~yin@user/zero) |
2024-05-13 16:04:12 +0200 | <dmj`> | https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-cult-of-the-haskell-programmer/ |
2024-05-13 16:03:43 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
2024-05-13 16:02:53 +0200 | demon-cat | (~demon-cat@dund-15-b2-v4wan-169642-cust1347.vm6.cable.virginm.net) |
2024-05-13 16:01:09 +0200 | hueso | (~root@user/hueso) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
2024-05-13 15:56:54 +0200 | dezalator | (~dezalator@77-254-94-95.dynamic.inetia.pl) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2024-05-13 15:54:51 +0200 | dezalator | (~dezalator@77-254-94-95.dynamic.inetia.pl) |
2024-05-13 15:54:22 +0200 | demon-cat | (~demon-cat@dund-15-b2-v4wan-169642-cust1347.vm6.cable.virginm.net) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
2024-05-13 15:52:49 +0200 | dezaaltor | (~dezaaltor@77-254-94-95.dynamic.inetia.pl) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2024-05-13 15:52:34 +0200 | syscall1 | (~syscall@2401:4900:16a3:3e97:3b3e:7956:62a8:2bba) (Client Quit) |
2024-05-13 15:52:31 +0200 | dezaaltor | (~dezaaltor@77-254-94-95.dynamic.inetia.pl) |
2024-05-13 15:51:11 +0200 | <ski> | (there are papers about doing this, for intuitionistic, resp. linear (rather than ordered) logic, in order to capture "island constraints" in "coordination" in natural language) |
2024-05-13 15:50:52 +0200 | syscall1 | (~syscall@2401:4900:16a3:3e97:3b3e:7956:62a8:2bba) |
2024-05-13 15:50:42 +0200 | raehik | (~raehik@rdng-25-b2-v4wan-169990-cust1344.vm39.cable.virginm.net) |
2024-05-13 15:50:36 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | even though realistically a parser will have to do something like that |
2024-05-13 15:50:32 +0200 | <ski> | mauke : anyway, another way to do it in a grammar, is to use Definite Clause Grammar, with ordered logic, using implicational grammar categories |
2024-05-13 15:50:23 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I don't think about this as "parse a token sequence for f, then reinterpret that token sequence using the infixr statement found later" |
2024-05-13 15:49:56 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | define an operator (*) with level 6, right-associative; then parse f as usual |
2024-05-13 15:49:26 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-003-078-122.176.3.pool.telefonica.de) |
2024-05-13 15:48:53 +0200 | <lambdabot> | 3 |
2024-05-13 15:48:52 +0200 | <ski> | > let f x y z = x * y * z where (*) = (-); infixr 6 * in f 2 3 4 |
2024-05-13 15:48:49 +0200 | ystael | (~ystael@user/ystael) |
2024-05-13 15:48:43 +0200 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip4d16fc38.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2024-05-13 15:46:56 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | my brain prefers to generate grammar rules at compile time, 'infix{,l,r}' statements being the way to do so |
2024-05-13 15:46:31 +0200 | <ski> | well, it's either that, or generating grammar rules at run-time, or something like that |
2024-05-13 15:46:12 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | baking the fact that it does into the syntax that the human needs to process fields weird to me |
2024-05-13 15:45:57 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | but as a human I prefer to pretend that it doesn't |
2024-05-13 15:45:47 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I mean, GHC already does precedence and associativity in a later pass anyway |
2024-05-13 15:45:37 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | right |
2024-05-13 15:45:32 +0200 | <ski> | (then taking precedence and associativity into account in a later pass. or, if you prefer hardcoding that into the grammar, that should be doable) |
2024-05-13 15:45:27 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | :p |
2024-05-13 15:45:25 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | ski: that's a lexing grammar, not a parsing grammar |
2024-05-13 15:45:15 +0200 | <mauke> | can I get that in BNF? |
2024-05-13 15:45:08 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | or rather, if we are to generalise E beyond the current definition, which is an expression at precedence level as expected on the LHS of 'op' |
2024-05-13 15:44:49 +0200 | sandbag | (~syscall@user/sandbag) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
2024-05-13 15:44:48 +0200 | <ski> | mauke : parenthesized sequence of atomic expressions, interleaved by operators, optional operator at start, and at end |
2024-05-13 15:44:28 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | my intuition would say that E should just be a top-level expression; this yields (2 + 3) * _ |
2024-05-13 15:44:09 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | what would the grammar for E be, indeed |
2024-05-13 15:43:54 +0200 | <mauke> | ski: how would you write that rule in a grammar? |