« first day (1400 days earlier)      last day (3063 days later) » 

12:55 AM
@G.Bach Far from being a bad idea, I think a comment like this would be entirely appropriate.
 
 
2 hours later…
2:37 AM
0
Q: Unanswered questions

Rick DeckerThere seems to have been some (little) interest over the years about clearing the list of unanswered questions. Not that our record is bad--apparently we're close to SE standards for STEM sites. Having nothing better to do, I went to the list and saw a slew of questions that had no answers of yet...

 
 
9 hours later…
11:32 AM
Can we use CYK algorithm for parsing?
 
@Romy "Can I use [a parsing algorithm] for parsing?" -- I don't understand your question.
@G.Bach I think that's the only reasonable answer!
 
12:07 PM
@Raphael sir I mean in Compiler implementations, LR(k) & LL(k) Parsers can not handle ambiguous grammars, so in place of them can we put a CYK Parser?
 
@Romy Sure. It will be less efficient but possible. Note, though, that CYK requires the grammar to be in CNF, so your ASTs may not look the way you want them to. Which can be fixed. I recommend you look at Earley parsing: it can deal with any CFG.
(@Romy note that you can edit your chat messages)
 
12:56 PM
@Raphael sir, I'll check.Thanks a lot.
 
 
2 hours later…
2:38 PM
(No need to "sir" anybody here, by the way.)
 
@Raphael Okay :)
 
 
5 hours later…
7:52 PM
I'm missing something about Bubblegum: esolangs.org/wiki/Bubblegum . Those two programs are identical, are they not? How do they do two different things?
Am I even in the right room for this?
 
 
1 hour later…
vzn
9:17 PM
@Resonating why do you care? they look the same to me too (nice catch/ very observant). its an admitted "joke language".

 The Nineteenth Byte

The Nineteenth Byte: General discussion for codegolf.stackexc...
 
9:36 PM
@Resonating The programs are identical. They are given different semantics, but they do the same things. The trick is that those semantics are compatible.
and while the question is about a programming language, the way I worded it shows that it's relevant to computer science
the semantics for program 1 is: “if the input consists of two or more integers then … otherwise anything can happen”
the semantics for program 2 is: “if the input consists of a single integer then … otherwise anything can happen”
“Semantics” is a fancy way to say “what the program does”. But if you look at it more precisely, a semantics is more like a set of possible behaviors.
If you take the intersection of the set of allowed behaviors given for program 1 and the set of allowed behaviors given for program 2, you get: “if the input consists of ≥2 integers then print the sum, if the input consists of a single integer then test whether it's prime (and if the input isn't a nonempty sequence of integers then anything can happen)”
Of course the reason why the description says this in a confusing way is a joke.
 
9:57 PM
@Gilles Aha, so 'fail' in this case means 'test for primality/do the wrong thing'. I feel kind of silly for spending a few minutes trying to figure out if I'd lost my mind. thanks
 
10:46 PM
@Romy, you might also be interested in looking at GLR parsers: there are several parser-construction tools out there that support automatically building a GLR parser. A GLR parser is one that can deal with any CFG (i.e., it's similar to Earley and CYK; they might even be using Earley under the hood). I think Gnu Bison even supports GLR parsing.
 

« first day (1400 days earlier)      last day (3063 days later) »