# Re: [stack] Re: infix syntax - iverson notation

## stevan apter — 2005-06-26 23:10:10

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "ori_berger" <ori_berger@...>

    To: <concatenative@yahoogroups.com>

    Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:43 PM

    Subject: [stack] Re: infix syntax - iverson notation

    > Stevan, I think this description is wonderful.

    thank you.

    > Just to make sure I'm following everything

    > correctly, a few questions:

    >

    > --- In concatenative@yahoogroups.com, "stevan apter" <sa@n...> wrote:

    >

    > ..snip

    > > a token has type noun (n), unary (n), verb (v), or adverb (a).

    >

    > I assume unary should be "u", based on the explanation below.

    > But why don't you call it monadic like Ken, Arthur and everyone

    > else always does (and you did to -- having looked at your PBG

    > for K a long time ago ...?)

    i wanted a letter closer to v than to n.  :)

    besides, "monad" has been purloined by the haskell

    people (after it was "borrowed" by APLers from leibniz.)

    >

    > ..snip

    > > the algorithm A -- developed by the IBM research scientists

    > > Bunda and Gerth -- works this way:

    >

    > If I understand the PBG algorithm correctly, this is what

    > the Dragon book calls "operator precedence grammar" or

    > "operator grammar". Is that correct? (2nd edition: sec

    > 4.6, pg 203)

    is that right?  i've never read the dragon book, nor do i

    own a copy.  but i'll have a look on the web.  thanks.

    >

    > Ori.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Yahoo! Groups Links

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >