@rygorous @Jonathan_Blow Validation is a separate thing though, right? You can always do LALR validation if you wanted to do that.
-
-
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Maybe it's always possible to push and pull grammar things into the lexer to avoid these things... -
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow But I feel like that's just a good indicator of a system that's poorly designed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow C++ is nowhere near LR(1), so I'm not sure you can lay that blame there. -
@pervognsen@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Yeah but it's still possible to parse, right, which is why I say I don't like these schemes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow "It's why you get shit like having to put spaces between <'s in C++." what? Hell no. -
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow If the lexer just had <, then you couldn't process those lines with LL(1), right. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow You don't even need a separate lexer, that's just a modularity thing. (And "<<" is now fixed in the grammar). -
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Well, OK, let's be more concrete then. I want << to mean negative, and <> to group things. Then I do <<<foo>. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.