@rygorous @Jonathan_Blow That's not fair, though, because most languages are designed a priori with that constraint!
-
-
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@Jonathan_Blow You don't even need a separate lexer, that's just a modularity thing. (And "<<" is now fixed in the grammar).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Well, OK, let's be more concrete then. I want << to mean negative, and <> to group things. Then I do <<<foo>.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Not the best example, but it should be trivial to parse that. It's very obvious when you look at it.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@Jonathan_Blow Your backtracking parser is going to, arbitrarily (and possibly inconsistently), pick one of those.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@rygorous @Jonathan_Blow You said you were out! You cannot come back in!
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.