2:25 p.m.
Well, yes, I'm naughty. I've implemented a parameterized evaluator, using
Unicode codepoint
U+2282<http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2282/index.htm>as
a parameter.
But the DRL parser refuses to accept this (as part of square_chunk_data):
Line 60:59 no viable alternative at input ''
which indicates that the character isn't recognized at all.
I think this happens because, outside of strings, codepoints beyond U+007F
aren't accepted anywhere except
those explicitly specified as IdentifierStart and IdentifierPart. Perhaps
square_chunk_data after an operator
identifier could be made to behave more like a string.
Admittedly, this is esoteric, but it sure does look dazzling ;-)
Cheers
-W
2:55 p.m.
Yes you are naughty ;-)
But it does lead me to question whether DRL and DSL can be unicode encoded
(so DSL at least) can be localised language (U+007F is the end of Basic
Latin/ASCII). Do you know the answer in your delvings?
On 21 October 2010 20:25, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, yes, I'm naughty. I've implemented a parameterized
evaluator, using
Unicode codepoint
U+2282<http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2282/index.htm>as a parameter.
But the DRL parser refuses to accept this (as part of square_chunk_data):
Line 60:59 no viable alternative at input ''
which indicates that the character isn't recognized at all.
I think this happens because, outside of strings, codepoints beyond U+007F
aren't accepted anywhere except
those explicitly specified as IdentifierStart and IdentifierPart. Perhaps
square_chunk_data after an operator
identifier could be made to behave more like a string.
Admittedly, this is esoteric, but it sure does look dazzling ;-)
Cheers
-W
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
12:39 a.m.
Off the cuff ;-)
DRL accepts Unicode letters for identifier, and any character in string
literals.
Normally, this would make a language fully unicodable, but DRL has a few
nooks and crannies where the syntax isn't fully specified by the language.
For instance, after all the temporal operators, you may write '[' <text>
']',
and the parser will, no: should: accept anything as long as brackets
contained
in <text> are properly balanced.
DSL shouldn't be a problem, since parsing it is a relatively simple pattern
matching
operation (with some frills).
On 21 October 2010 21:55, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes you are naughty ;-)
But it does lead me to question whether DRL and DSL can be unicode encoded
(so DSL at least) can be localised language (U+007F is the end of Basic
Latin/ASCII). Do you know the answer in your delvings?
On 21 October 2010 20:25, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, yes, I'm naughty. I've implemented a parameterized evaluator, using
> Unicode codepoint
U+2282<http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2282/index.htm>as a parameter.
>
> But the DRL parser refuses to accept this (as part of square_chunk_data):
> Line 60:59 no viable alternative at input ''
> which indicates that the character isn't recognized at all.
>
> I think this happens because, outside of strings, codepoints beyond U+007F
> aren't accepted anywhere except
> those explicitly specified as IdentifierStart and IdentifierPart. Perhaps
> square_chunk_data after an operator
> identifier could be made to behave more like a string.
>
> Admittedly, this is esoteric, but it sure does look dazzling ;-)
>
> Cheers
> -W
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
4949
days inactive
4950
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Michael Anstis -
Wolfgang Laun