Le 31/03/2017 à 21:46, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
Hi thierry
Where can I find a documentation of +, * ? in the grammar (and
especially how to manage the production)?
formally, +, *, ? do behave as they are defined in BNF extensions. They
are compiled by generating itermediate productions, as one does when it
converts by hand: you can see the itermediate non-terminals generated if
you look at the items and symbols of the compiled parser.
And indeed they do not work in the Moose version.
They were probably introduced by lr in the 1.x series of SmaCC for Squeak.
I think that if +, *, ?, ( ) are working in the grammar it is an
important addition to Smacc. Because I found it right now verbose
compare to ANTLR
Yes but the combination of AST annotations and those syntax extensions
needs to be checked, and maybe adjusted, and I haven't done that yet.
Thierry
Stef
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goub...@gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2017-03-29 18:21 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com
<mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>>:
So I browsed the mailing-list and I foind the mail of thierry
saying that there is no difference.
I will try to tools in moose then.
Probably: the +, *, ?, ( ) in the grammar don't work anymore. As I
told you: very few differences.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Stephane Ducasse
<stepharo.s...@gmail.com <mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ok I should say that I do not understand the differences and
why there are two versions of Smacc.
So I will stop maintaining the tutorial because now may be I
should revert what I wrote.
I was too stupid to do it in fact I should focus on my stuff
and nothing else.
This saddens me a lot.
We are a small community and we split ourselves into little
chunks.
I do not get why there is no notion of economy and sharing
in our culture.
Thierry
Stef
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Tudor Girba
<tu...@tudorgirba.com <mailto:tu...@tudorgirba.com>> wrote:
Hi,
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Stephane Ducasse
<stepharo.s...@gmail.com
<mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> OK
> I loaded Smacc from github as mentioned by thierry.
>
> Metacello new
> baseline: 'SmaCC';
> repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC';
> load
>
> Are there two configurationOfSmacc?
> May be we should only have one no?
>
> I have the impression that even thierry and jason working
heavily with Smacc do not know that.
> And we should not force them to use Moose. At least we do not
have to win
> anything with it.
I did not mean to force anyone to use Moose. I just said
it is already loaded there, in case you use it.
Moose relies on the ConfigurationOfSmaCC maintained by
John. Thierry has another repository that he created
before John moved his work to Pharo. But, now that he
does work with Pharo Moose relies on his version.
Cheers,
Doru
>
> Stef
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com
<mailto:tu...@tudorgirba.com>> wrote:
> They come with the ConfigurationOfSmaCC which is already in
the Moose image.
>
> Doru
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Stephane Ducasse
<stepharo.s...@gmail.com
<mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > where can I load the Smacc gt extension and debugger
extensions?
> >
> > Stef
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com>
>
> "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
>
>
>
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com>
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of
looking at them."
