The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 01:26 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Shiro Kawai
(18 Mar 2013 02:42 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 02:44 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Shiro Kawai
(18 Mar 2013 04:45 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 00:17 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation David A. Wheeler (19 Mar 2013 03:28 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 05:52 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 10:44 UTC)
|
Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 03:41 UTC)
|
Re: Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 04:12 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 03:09 UTC)
|
Alan Manuel Gloria: > There's a subtle problem with ". $" though... > > First: > > a $ b > ===> > (a b) ; as described in the rationale for SUBLIST. > > Then: > > a . $ b > ===> > (a . b) > > ??? Bug, and I think fixed. Current development version of "unsweeten" and the ANTLR implementation seem to work. The Scheme implementation now does this: $ printf 'a . $ b\n\n' | ./unsweeten (a b) Supporting ". $" does have a slight annoyance; it creates a minor ambiguity in the grammar (basically, like a "dangling else" clause in many langauges). I've been able to avoid those so far. It's not a crisis, because we can easily make it go first, but it is an annoyance. --- David A. Wheeler