|
echo
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
echo
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
echo
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
echo
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
PING
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
|
|
I figured out an abbreviated way I think, to compute a k value for a given grammar, without computing the k for every rule.
This is important because it makes lookahead computation for a grammar much more realistic in terms of resources used.
Now, I'm not the only one to come up with an optimization to the general LL(k) algorithm. A lot of people have come up with their own. This is part of mine.
What's interesting here is, if it works, and right now I assume it will, then I will have a viable LL(k) parser.
What's more interesting is the math here. I never got taught formally, but so many people with so many optimizations suggests there's an underlying "better way" to compute all this.
And given all the evolution of the subfield since Wirth, it wouldn't surprise me. As math goes, it moves pretty rapidly in terms of advancement. Over the last several decades the math of parsing has gotten more sophisticated and more realistic at the same time, although the underlying problem domain is unchanged.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: I figured out an abbreviated way I think
I first read that as you had figured out an abbreviated way to think!
I'm curious, knowing absolutely nothing about your field but read your posts with interest, is there a mathematical way to prove that algorithm is better? Or, probably more importantly, is actually sound?
|
|
|
|
|
yes, but it's above my paygrade. My education is spotty. I was a homeless teen before landing at microsoft at 18 so I never got a formal education in maths.
There are holes in my knowledge. So I can tell you for sure, that yes there's a mathematical way to prove that it works, and to prove that it's "better" (more efficient) but I couldn't tell you what it was beyond maybe some vague notion.
I'm ordering The Dragon Book right now, and hopefully that will help me with some of the math I need.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
You will want to look into Big O Notation - that should be more helpful for analysis of algorithms than the Dragon Book. Wikipedia's entry should get you started.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
i'm familiarish with it. I'm more interested in the hows. I can glean the complexity from that pretty easily.
The problem I've had learning parsing is my lack of formal computer science and math training.
A lot of course material and lecture notes go over my head sometimes, and while the Dragon Book is no different, it's at least the material all of this stuff cites, so if I need to decode something, it may as well be that.
material like this on the other hand: Translating mathematics into code: Examples in Java, Python, Haskell and Racket[^]
has been immensely helpful and I wish there were more of it. Maybe when i've mastered it some myself I'll write an article here expanding on the subject.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
The Dragon Book is a good start on Compilers, but tends to concentrate on LALR parsers. Nonetheless, much of the material will still be helpful. Good luck.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
hmm. i already do know how to build LALR parsers. I just don't like LR parsing. But I do need to know more about viable prefix computation anyway so the $4.95 was well spent. LOL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I accidentally got sent an auto termination letter for job abandonment for a job i hadn't heard from since the interview.
yay HR software.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they think they hired you and forgot to tell you about it.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I called them. It was a glitch. I was like "I abandoned a job? It said I missed 3 scheduled days."
It took them a minute to realize who I was and then apologize for the mix up.
Strange either way. I feel like I just succeeded at failing and it kind of balanced out in the end. 
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume you got paid for those three days work? 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
lol
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Reply with a demand for the holiday money you haven't yet been paid.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh...
You should reply and complain that you didn't get paid at all! Ask for compensation money! 
|
|
|
|
|
or I could just reply to *you* and tell you to check your email
I sent you a link to a github with LL on it.
LL is usable now. And I've worked out the kink with the { } repeat construct so it doesn't introduce conflicts.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice!
Will check that tonight.
Doing mundane work at work right now! 
|
|
|
|
|
You haven't lived until you've convinced your manager you need a parser generator for your project.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, done that!
In 2005 I had to Parse ObjectiveC header to generated C++/CLI code that can interface with GNUstep!
Used ANTLR back then.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
