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
Hi thierry
Where can I find a documentation of +, * ? in the grammar (and especially
how to manage the production)?
And indeed they do not work in the Moose version.
I think that if +, *, ?, ( ) are working in the grammar it is an important
addition to Smacc. Because I found it right now verbose c
Hi,
It is actually the economic reasoning that prevailed here.
John was willing to invest effort to both work with and benefit from the
Moose/GT environment. The consequence was that he built the GT extensions for
SmaCC while Andrei and I offered a bit of support. In this process, we also got
Hi Jimmie,
Le 29/03/2017 à 20:07, Jimmie Houchin a écrit :
What I don't understand from this thread, and my apologies if it was
expressed. But to me the question is not what or why happened in the
past. Rather what is the way to proceed ahead with a single canonical
source. This is what will ben
What I don't understand from this thread, and my apologies if it was
expressed. But to me the question is not what or why happened in the
past. Rather what is the way to proceed ahead with a single canonical
source. This is what will benefit the community. What and where is that
source.
Shalo
2017-03-29 18:07 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse :
> 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
2017-03-29 18:21 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse :
> 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,
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.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Stephane Ducasse
wrote:
> Ok I should say that I do not understand the differences and why there are
> two versions of Smacc.
> S
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 s
Hi,
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Stephane Ducasse
> 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 b
Le 28/03/2017 à 11:50, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
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 t
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 he
They come with the ConfigurationOfSmaCC which is already in the Moose image.
Doru
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> where can I load the Smacc gt extension and debugger extensions?
>
> Stef
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Speaking louder won't make the
Hi
where can I load the Smacc gt extension and debugger extensions?
Stef
14 matches
Mail list logo
