From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: access to parser stack in SMIE Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:20:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <85pq4wgrho.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85lifjfn10.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85wqz1dg7k.fsf@member.fsf.org> <857gr1da6d.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85vcek1sgm.fsf@member.fsf.org> <85txu4iaqt.fsf@member.fsf.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349756455 10862 80.91.229.3 (9 Oct 2012 04:20:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Leake Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 09 06:21:02 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJU-0002zO-0j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:21:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40989 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJN-0006GN-Qc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:20:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJL-0006GC-Q8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:20:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJK-0001Ud-Qi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:20:51 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:28855) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJK-0001UZ-Ln for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:20:50 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAG6Zu09FxLQG/2dsb2JhbABEtBGBCIIVAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0khiWBdwW6CZBEA6MzgViDBYFD X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="200897232" Original-Received: from 69-196-180-6.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.180.6]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Oct 2012 00:20:49 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E3421594FF; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:20:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <85txu4iaqt.fsf@member.fsf.org> (Stephen Leake's message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:29:30 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:154253 Archived-At: > Neither set of tools wants a _complete_ BNF. And because they use a different underlying parser algorithm, even if they described exactly the same grammar, they'd want different BNFs. > Automating a BNF filter to extract just the right subset for each tool > would be a really neat feat (and probably pass the Turing test :). I think that merging the two will require some way to give a higher-level description of the grammar which gives enough hints about what goes to SMIE and what goes to Semantic (and what is shared). Stefan