On Wednesday, 12 June 2019 23:48:36 UTC+2, Michael Jones wrote:
>
> Volker, did you see a few posts back that I did the run Roger asked about,
> on RSC’s huge corpus? It is about 10x the size and its parens, braces, and
> brackets match just fine, all *7476284* of them....
>
If I remember the corpus was curated to be buildable, but on
the other hand the Go 1.13 codebase in master should be
buildable always too, anytime. Weird.
V.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:13 PM Michael Jones <michae...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> They matched up until yesterday. When I updated at 2am California time it
>> changed. It also had no "0o" octal literals up until the latest.
>>
>> I'd planned to joke how the race was on to be the first to check in a new
>> octal literal in my mail, but a few of those snuck in too.
>>
>> Yesterday:
>> Count | Frequency | Detail
>> ---:|---:|---
>> 929548 | 19.7889% | ,
>> 574886 | 12.2386% | .
>>
>> * 544819 | 11.5985% | ( 544819 | 11.5985% | ) *
>>
>> * 352547 | 7.5053% | { 352547 | 7.5053% | } *
>> 288042 | 6.1321% | =
>> 253563 | 5.3980% | :
>> 155297 | 3.3061% | :=
>>
>> *138465 | 2.9478% | [ 138465 | 2.9478% | ] *
>> 78567 | 1.6726% | !=
>> 72007 | 1.5329% | *
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:51 PM Volker Dobler <dr.volk...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cool work!
>>>
>>> What I found most astonishing on a first look: Not all
>>> parentheses ( are closed: 4 ) seem to be missing??
>>> For { 5 are unclosed while there is one more ] than [ ?
>>>
>>> Are you parsing testfiles with deliberate errors?
>>>
>>> V.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 12 June 2019 15:08:44 UTC+2, Michael Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been working on a cascade of projects, each needing the next as a
>>>> part, the most recent being rewriting text.Scanner. It was not a goal, but
>>>> the existing scanner does not do what I need (recognize Go operators,
>>>> number types, and more) and my shim code was nearly as big as the standard
>>>> library scanner itself, so I just sat down an rewrote it cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> To test beyond hand-crafted edge cases it seemed good to try it against
>>>> a large body of Go code. I chose the Go 1.13 code base, and because the
>>>> results are interesting on their own beyond my purpose of code testing, I
>>>> thought to share what I've noticed as a Github Gist on the subject of the
>>>> "Go Popularity Contest"—what are the most used types, most referenced
>>>> packages, most and least popular operators, etc. The data are interesting,
>>>> but I'll let it speak for itself. Find it here:
>>>>
>>>> https://gist.github.com/MichaelTJones/ca0fd339401ebbe79b9cbb5044afcfe2
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Generated by go test. I just cut off the "passed" line and posted
>>>> it. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Michael T. jonesmichae...@gmail.com*
>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to golan...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1a0e2b4b-9276-4418-929c-51888cf2c93a%40googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1a0e2b4b-9276-4418-929c-51888cf2c93a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>
> *Michael T. jonesmichae...@gmail.com <javascript:>*
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/e401f2d7-44e3-400a-846a-6f3276f0698d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
