From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interesting article on ARG work Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:43:44 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1b44444f-c1b3-414e-84fb-8798961487c3@googlegroups.com> <62ee0aac-49da-4925-b9aa-a16695b3fc45@googlegroups.com> <9879872e-c18a-4667-afe5-41ce0f54559f@googlegroups.com> <80db2d05-744f-4201-ba1b-4436f8040491@googlegroups.com> <59f9ab6d-d6ba-45ff-a6f0-c5699983d9e8@googlegroups.com> <1a390e22-f49f-4028-8e58-ca4d0f51e4b6@googlegroups.com> <8fca2fed-2721-48dc-95e5-5b98e7c1fa70@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: MyFhHs417jM9AgzRpXn7yg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51406 Date: 2018-04-09T09:43:44+02:00 List-Id: On 09/04/2018 05:50, Dan'l Miller wrote: > I am saying that you are 100% incorrect that only the presence or only the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implementation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for extended periods of time. I didn't say that. On the contrary all combinations must be compiled independently on which parts are presently active or inactive. Just the same way a pragma is compiled regardless if the compiler is going to ignore it in the end. That is the difference to preprocessing. I am saying that you sure appear to be quite ignorant of GLR parsers' ability to parse both the presence and absence of the @-code ••concurrently in the same invocation•• of the compiler in O(n) time Correct. I don't care about LR etc parsers and consider the whole branch of formal grammars with accompanied parsers useless. None of the compilers from domain-specific language I developed over years ever used that stuff. If you want to say that your parser could not handle that, I would not question that. Maybe. Though I doubt that, but do not care, because see above. I also consider the idea of source code generation in general and from a formal grammar in particular incredibly harmful for the software development POV. There must be no meta-languages involved except where absolutely necessary (e.g. in correctness proofs) > I am saying that nearly everything that you have said among your multiple replies to Randy's @-code is hogwash and horse-hooey. Perhaps. Every. Word. Of. It. It is easy to be perfect. To be wrong in every word is almost impossible (due to the Liar Antinomy). So thanks. (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de