On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: >> Hi TJ, >> >> I like your new approach for defining an+b, but I think that the grammar is missing a few clauses for when A is implicitly 1: >> >> n+3 >> +n+3 >> -n+3 > > Should be fixed now. I had to add 8 more clauses to the production, > but they group naturally with the existing ones, so it should still be > easy enough to understand. I'll note, though, that this is now technically *slightly* more permissive than the original grammar: if you use any of the "+n" forms, whitespace is now allowed between the "+" and the "n", while it was illegal originally. I couldn't wipe that out without abandoning property grammar entirely, since property grammar is entirely agnostic to whitespace between tokens. It was also always unclear whether comments were allowed inside of an+b. It's now clear by default, since I'm using a property grammar. I don't believe either of these are problematic. ~TJReceived on Monday, 13 May 2013 17:55:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:29 UTC