----- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

stevan apter — 2005-06-26 23:10:10