From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2009-02-26T07:53:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Nexus Programming Language

--pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:57:48PM +0900, Dylan Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >
> > More than that -- and still relevant today -- parsers for Polish notati=
on
> > are generally more difficult to *write*.  I know -- I've tried designing
> > both Polish notation parsers and RPN parsers.  In fact, Polish notation
> > parsers are more difficult to write for essentially the same reason that
> > RPN parsers are slightly more efficient from the machine's point of vie=
w.
>=20
> That's seems funny because bison uses RPN as an example. The syntax isn't
> complex and once you have tokens you just need to shift the values onto a
> stack and when an operator comes along you just apply it to the last two
> values then push the result. Or you can create a tree where each value
> becomes a node and the following operation the parent.

I'm not sure how that "seems funny", considering you just confirmed some
of what I said -- that RPN parsers are easier to write than Polish
notation parsers.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
left (n.): 1. crazy pinko commie agricultural reformer Marxist
theft-culture collectivist; 2. opposite of "right"

--pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmly5EACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUtHACdENGdt8/TbPZhCNDWdS5bfbrT
q4IAni7ONXv1ow39Ln0yKl+sCZz41kiF
=yFA3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw--