@rygorous @Jonathan_Blow I'm only saying that because Sean said it :) But LL(1) is pretty weak sauce dude...
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Why settle for that constraint?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow Name one programming language (other than Ada!) that is LR(k) (or LL(k)), k > 1 but not LL(1). :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow That's not fair, though, because most languages are designed a priori with that constraint!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow If it was actually a limiting factor, don't you think *someone*, at some point, would've done something about it?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow There are so many things that are limiting factors that nobody does anything about, I would have to say: NO.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow Stop screwing around, name *one* construct that is LR(1) not LL(1). Just one.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow I agree that that's unlikely, but that's what I am not fond of LR(1) either, right. LR(1) plus lexer is this janky1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow thing that people settled on. It's why you get shit like having to put spaces between <'s in C++.4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow C++ is nowhere near LR(1), so I'm not sure you can lay that blame there.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@pervognsen @rygorous @Jonathan_Blow Yeah but it's still possible to parse, right, which is why I say I don't like these schemes.
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.