From puellula at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 18:18:15 2006 From: puellula at gmail.com (Sara) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:18:15 +0200 Subject: [grammarians] Ruby Grammar Message-ID: <002701c6f0a7$d0de44b0$6401a8c0@trudy> Hi at all, with a special thanks to Terence Parr, yesterday I had uploaded the (semplified) Ruby Grammar on www.antlr.org . Thanks to the guy worked with me for the (ruby parser + pretty printer) project: Pasquale De Medio. bye bye Sara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061016/bde552eb/attachment.html From mental at rydia.net Mon Oct 23 21:45:16 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:45:16 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Ruby Grammar In-Reply-To: <002701c6f0a7$d0de44b0$6401a8c0@trudy> References: <002701c6f0a7$d0de44b0$6401a8c0@trudy> Message-ID: <1161654317.10116.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:18 +0200, Sara wrote: > Hi at all, > with a special thanks to Terence Parr, yesterday I had uploaded the > (semplified) Ruby Grammar on www.antlr.org . > Thanks to the guy worked with me for the (ruby parser + pretty > printer) project: Pasquale De Medio. Congratulations! -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061023/982166c6/attachment-0001.bin From Charles.O.Nutter at Sun.COM Tue Oct 24 00:49:40 2006 From: Charles.O.Nutter at Sun.COM (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:49:40 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar Message-ID: <453D9B64.8040707@sun.com> We on the JRuby project have recently become interested in helping make progress on an antlr-based grammar. For our purposes, the current YACC grammar works well enough, but it's fragile and a poor choice for any application that wants more than a straight-through parse (JIT compilation, IDEs and editors, code analysis tools). I'm curious about a few things: - What's the state of the RubyGrammar project? How much code can it parse today? (especially in light of the recent contributions) - How does it compare to the RubyFront grammar? I'm no grammarian, but at a glance that one appeared to be more complete, and was able to parse the entire stdlib (though I have no idea about accuracy). - Is this project still being actively worked? If I have grammarians interested in helping, should I point them at rubygrammar or rubyfront? (I know of a few such folks inside and outside of Sun standing by) -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.o.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From zhixueyong at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 11:37:45 2006 From: zhixueyong at hotmail.com (Xue Yong Zhi) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:37:45 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <453D9B64.8040707@sun.com> Message-ID: >- What's the state of the RubyGrammar project? How much code can it >parse today? (especially in light of the recent contributions) As far as I know, the ruby grammar in the SVN and the one uploaded to antlr.org is very basic. Based on my experience, they can parse at most 5% of the ruby's stdlib. >- How does it compare to the RubyFront grammar? I'm no grammarian, but >at a glance that one appeared to be more complete, and was able to parse >the entire stdlib (though I have no idea about accuracy). As the author of rubyfront, I can assure you it can parse the entire stdlib and ROR:). Rigth now I am using it as the frontend of my xruby compiler and it works pretty well. >- Is this project still being actively worked? If I have grammarians >interested in helping, should I point them at rubygrammar or rubyfront? >(I know of a few such folks inside and outside of Sun standing by) I do not know if there is anyone still working on this project. It looks like the last SVN commit was 8 months ago, and this mailist has no activities for quite a few months. As for rubyfront, everyone is welcome to change even fork it (I just did not feel the need myself so I did not check it into the SVN here). All the new code can be found at: http://xruby.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/com/xruby/compiler/parser/ All the code is the 'parser' package is BSD licensed (I will clean the license mess in the code soon, do not let it stop you:)) _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 16:44:54 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:44:54 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 11:37 -0400, Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > I do not know if there is anyone still working on this project. It looks > like the last SVN commit was 8 months ago, and this mailist has no > activities for quite a few months. Yes... everyone talked briefly, then went off and wrote their own grammars separately. I had hoped for a more collaborative effort... Part of that's my fault, I guess, since I was holding the bag for key things like grammar unit tests and never followed through because I got too busy with other things. But, the important thing is that the grammars did get written, and in particular yours is quite complete. > All the code is the 'parser' package is BSD licensed (I will clean the > license mess in the code soon, do not let it stop you:)) rubyfront is ANTLR 2, isn't it? If so, do you plan on porting it to ANTLR 3? If not, it might be a worthwhile exercise for the project to either port yours to ANTLR 3, or expand Sara's grammar using yours as a reference. Either way, the original plan was to write an ANTLR 3 reference grammar, and then use that as a basis for a formal specification of Ruby's grammar. I think it's still a relevant goal. Are folks still interested? -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/a833f543/attachment.bin From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 17:07:06 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:07:06 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <453D9B64.8040707@sun.com> References: <453D9B64.8040707@sun.com> Message-ID: <1161724026.15282.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 23:49 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > - What's the state of the RubyGrammar project? How much code can it > parse today? (especially in light of the recent contributions) It's really sort of a meta-project, with our ultimate deliverable being a formal specification of the grammar, producing a useful ANTLR 3 reference grammar as part of that process. We've got some incomplete parsers in SVN, but none of those are "the" RubyGrammar grammar at this point. > - How does it compare to the RubyFront grammar? I'm no grammarian, but > at a glance that one appeared to be more complete, and was able to parse > the entire stdlib (though I have no idea about accuracy). The RubyFront grammar is by far the most complete of any of the ANTLR grammars I've seen. > - Is this project still being actively worked? If I have grammarians > interested in helping, should I point them at rubygrammar or rubyfront? > (I know of a few such folks inside and outside of Sun standing by) Well, RubyFront would certainly be a good basis, but as far as I know (Xue Yong Zhi, please correct me if I'm wrong), RubyFront is just a component of the XRuby project. If JRuby also plans to use it, then you should think about either merging JRuby and XRuby, or factoring RubyFront out into a separate project so that other Ruby implementation projects could use it easily (ZeroOneInfinity and all that). If you guys do feel it's best to factor out RubyFront, I'd be happy to provide the The Ruby Grammar Project, its SVN repository, and its mailing list as a home for the effort, and provide what material assistance I can, including making people project admins. I'm just here to facilitate this Ruby Grammar thing. As long as it gets done I'm not too particular about the details. -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/744fa322/attachment.bin From charles.nutter at sun.com Tue Oct 24 17:27:22 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:27:22 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161724026.15282.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <453D9B64.8040707@sun.com> <1161724026.15282.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <453E853A.4070000@sun.com> MenTaLguY wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 23:49 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> - What's the state of the RubyGrammar project? How much code can it >> parse today? (especially in light of the recent contributions) > > It's really sort of a meta-project, with our ultimate deliverable being > a formal specification of the grammar, producing a useful ANTLR 3 > reference grammar as part of that process. We've got some incomplete > parsers in SVN, but none of those are "the" RubyGrammar grammar at this > point. This sounds like what I've been pushing with the RubyTests project...a place for disparate projects to start putting their efforts together. RubyTests is now starting to take off, so it seems a good time for RubyGrammar to reawaken. > >> - How does it compare to the RubyFront grammar? I'm no grammarian, but >> at a glance that one appeared to be more complete, and was able to parse >> the entire stdlib (though I have no idea about accuracy). > > The RubyFront grammar is by far the most complete of any of the ANTLR > grammars I've seen. > >> - Is this project still being actively worked? If I have grammarians >> interested in helping, should I point them at rubygrammar or rubyfront? >> (I know of a few such folks inside and outside of Sun standing by) > > Well, RubyFront would certainly be a good basis, but as far as I know > (Xue Yong Zhi, please correct me if I'm wrong), RubyFront is just a > component of the XRuby project. > > If JRuby also plans to use it, then you should think about either > merging JRuby and XRuby, or factoring RubyFront out into a separate > project so that other Ruby implementation projects could use it easily > (ZeroOneInfinity and all that). > A merge would be a much more complicated affair. JRuby does not have a compiler, but has implemented almost all the core classes and there's a prototype compiler already present. In addition I'll be working on a new stack machine for uncompiled execution and continuing the Java compiler after that. Factoring out RubyFront would almost certainly be the best way to handle things, and would also free up the grammar for other projects. > If you guys do feel it's best to factor out RubyFront, I'd be happy to > provide the The Ruby Grammar Project, its SVN repository, and its > mailing list as a home for the effort, and provide what material > assistance I can, including making people project admins. > > I'm just here to facilitate this Ruby Grammar thing. As long as it gets > done I'm not too particular about the details. > That would be great, if Xue agrees. I'd say this is the perfect place to put such work, and we all can benefit from it. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From zhixueyong at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 17:52:18 2006 From: zhixueyong at hotmail.com (Xue Yong Zhi) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:52:18 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <453E83A1.6030109@sun.com> Message-ID: >Nick Sieger and I (well, mostly Nick) were looking at the XRuby grammar at >RubyConf. We generated a Java parser and compared it with our current YACC >(Jay) based version. It wasn't much faster, unfortunately, but it would be >much easier to work with and use for other projects. In addition, it avoids >our hand-written (ported from C) lexer, which is a nasty bit of code. We >did not do anything to confirm it was parsing correctly, however, so that >would probably be the next step. Antlr is not famous for its speed:) In fact, quite a few folks from yacc backgound are disappointed by its speed. Antlr v3 seems to be faster. >Nick made a few minor changes to the XRuby grammar and got it to work with >AntlrWorks, which is Antlr v3-based. I do not believe he tried to generate >a parser with v3. I would like to do a v3 parser, but won't start myself unless v3 is out of beta and has documentation ready. Terence(ANTLR's dictator) is very quiet since school started, so it does not look like he is going to finish something soon. If everyone else want to do it I would be very happy to help. > >Others do not believe there is value in JRuby pursuing a change of grammar >or parser at this time. I believe they are wrong, so I'm very interested. >Even if the resulting parser was inappropriate or too much work to use for >JRuby at runtime, it would still be useful for IDE work, compiler work, >etc. > I agree, and will be very glad to see rubyfront is useful for other people. I always want to document more about the tricks of parsing ruby, but do not have time:( So if anyone has any questions just shoot me an email. _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more?then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001 From zhixueyong at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 18:09:41 2006 From: zhixueyong at hotmail.com (Xue Yong Zhi) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:09:41 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161724026.15282.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: >Well, RubyFront would certainly be a good basis, but as far as I know >(Xue Yong Zhi, please correct me if I'm wrong), RubyFront is just a >component of the XRuby project. > Well, it does not have to be. Actually my original plan was to make rubyfront a standalone project. But since nobody really showed interest in using it, I just merge it into the XRuby's repository for my own convenience. A slightly older version is still available to download as a standalone project at: http://xruby.com/Documents/rubyfront.zip . To used the newer one, just grab anything from http://xruby.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/com/xruby/compiler/parser/ (you may not want ruby.tree.g, which is incomplete and coupled with codegen backend) As I said, anyone is welcome to use/change/fork the code -- it is BSD license. _________________________________________________________________ Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 18:32:12 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:32:12 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 16:26 -0500, Nick Sieger wrote: > I for one am still interested. I was looking at the rubyfront grammar > this weekend and I don't think it should be too hard to port to ANTLR > 3. > > Also, what about the idea of a multi-pass parser? With Ruby's syntax > so complex, it might help to break down into several stages for > understandability. That was Terence's opinion as well, if I remember correctly (Hi Ter!). I've not had time to look at the RubyFront grammar deeply, but I was a little surprised that Yong Zhi was apparently able to do heredocs without multiple passes, actually. > Also, on the JRuby project, we have a need for a more fault-tolerant > parser because eventually IDEs will be using it to parse partial > source files for refactoring and analysis. Any ideas here? Well ... not much. One bit of advice from my minor experience in hand-rolling "fuzzy" parsers for reverse-engineered languages: it's really easy for "fuzzy" parsers to turn into effectively meaningless piles of heuristics. You need a strict grammar as a starting point anyway. At that point, you can make a "fuzzy" version largely by establishing specific "fallback points" where things can end up in an "unparsable blob" terminal, and otherwise keep it as strict as possible. Some heuristics (perhaps as a second pass) are okay, but you have to be able to account for their interactions so that you don't mis-match a valid input. In the case of an IDE, those same fallback points might be good units of granularity at which to only re-parse subranges of a changed file -- that way, you can localize the effects of things like edits which result in mismatched braces. Terence might have some more useful ideas and/or practical experience about that sort of thing as well. HE'S the grammar expert after all. :) > MenTaL: I don't think you made it to RubyConf did you? Sorry you > missed it. No ... I probably won't go until/unless I would be giving a presentation, honestly. Unless I was sure to contribute significantly, I wouldn't feel right taking up a scarce slot. -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/7caf70b4/attachment-0001.bin From tom at infoether.com Tue Oct 24 18:56:30 2006 From: tom at infoether.com (Tom Copeland) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:56:30 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 18:32 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 16:26 -0500, Nick Sieger wrote: > > I for one am still interested. I was looking at the rubyfront grammar > > this weekend and I don't think it should be too hard to port to ANTLR > > 3. > > > > Also, what about the idea of a multi-pass parser? With Ruby's syntax > > so complex, it might help to break down into several stages for > > understandability. > > That was Terence's opinion as well, if I remember correctly (Hi Ter!). > I've not had time to look at the RubyFront grammar deeply, but I was a > little surprised that Yong Zhi was apparently able to do heredocs > without multiple passes, actually. Xue has a good blog entry on this here: http://seclib.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-on-leftshift-and-heredoc.html It turns out to be a whitespace thing. I'm occasionally fiddling with a JavaCC Ruby grammar and have had fun time sorting through this and also the various %w{} sorts of things... good times. Yours, Tom From charles.nutter at sun.com Tue Oct 24 20:13:42 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:13:42 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> Message-ID: <453EAC36.9020305@sun.com> Tom Copeland wrote: > Xue has a good blog entry on this here: > > http://seclib.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-on-leftshift-and-heredoc.html > > It turns out to be a whitespace thing. > > I'm occasionally fiddling with a JavaCC Ruby grammar and have had fun > time sorting through this and also the various %w{} sorts of things... > good times. I think we can all agree we're working toward the same goals here, so perhaps it makes sense to merge all efforts under the RubyGrammar project? I'm no grammarian, but I am very interested in seeing this effort succeed. I hate parse.y. I hate JRuby's DefaultRubyParser.y. It's time for a better option. Let's put our backs into it and finally solve the great parser question. Xue, would you be willing to merge the RubyFront parser in its current form into this project, for the good of all mankind? -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From mtrier at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 20:38:34 2006 From: mtrier at gmail.com (Michael Trier) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:38:34 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> Message-ID: <3b2d977c0610241738l572f84faned7b4fbfafcfcf9e@mail.gmail.com> > > > I for one am still interested. I was looking at the rubyfront grammar > > > this weekend and I don't think it should be too hard to port to ANTLR I'm no expert on the subject but I have spent quite a bit of time looking into all the parsers out there. I have been really impressed with Xue's work on RubyFront. It looks to be the best place to start and it would be great if everyone could work together on it so the whole community can benefit. Michael From charles.nutter at Sun.COM Tue Oct 24 17:20:33 2006 From: charles.nutter at Sun.COM (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:20:33 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <453E83A1.6030109@sun.com> MenTaLguY wrote: > Yes... everyone talked briefly, then went off and wrote their own > grammars separately. I had hoped for a more collaborative effort... > > Part of that's my fault, I guess, since I was holding the bag for key > things like grammar unit tests and never followed through because I got > too busy with other things. > > But, the important thing is that the grammars did get written, and in > particular yours is quite complete. Nick Sieger and I (well, mostly Nick) were looking at the XRuby grammar at RubyConf. We generated a Java parser and compared it with our current YACC (Jay) based version. It wasn't much faster, unfortunately, but it would be much easier to work with and use for other projects. In addition, it avoids our hand-written (ported from C) lexer, which is a nasty bit of code. We did not do anything to confirm it was parsing correctly, however, so that would probably be the next step. > rubyfront is ANTLR 2, isn't it? If so, do you plan on porting it to > ANTLR 3? If not, it might be a worthwhile exercise for the project to > either port yours to ANTLR 3, or expand Sara's grammar using yours as a > reference. Nick made a few minor changes to the XRuby grammar and got it to work with AntlrWorks, which is Antlr v3-based. I do not believe he tried to generate a parser with v3. > > Either way, the original plan was to write an ANTLR 3 reference grammar, > and then use that as a basis for a formal specification of Ruby's > grammar. I think it's still a relevant goal. > > Are folks still interested? Others do not believe there is value in JRuby pursuing a change of grammar or parser at this time. I believe they are wrong, so I'm very interested. Even if the resulting parser was inappropriate or too much work to use for JRuby at runtime, it would still be useful for IDE work, compiler work, etc. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 21:17:10 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:17:10 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <453EAC36.9020305@sun.com> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161730590.24141.3.camel@bugs.hal> <453EAC36.9020305@sun.com> Message-ID: <1161739031.15282.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 19:13 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > I hate parse.y. I hate JRuby's DefaultRubyParser.y. It's > time for a better option. Let's put our backs into it and finally > solve the great parser question. YES!!! -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/af0daa09/attachment.bin From charles.nutter at sun.com Tue Oct 24 21:50:36 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:50:36 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen Message-ID: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> Mental has added me as a project admin for RubyGrammar. So I'll be helping to push this effort along, for all our benefit. I think the first order of business would be asking Xue pretty-please to release the RubyFront grammar to this project, so we can all proceed from there. Once we've got it into the RubyGrammar domain, the next steps are up to y'all: - Continuing work on correctness - ANTLR v3? - Decide on a standard AST structure to be built out of this? (for example, JRuby's AST is starting to differ from Ruby's, so even if we port ParseTree we'll have compatibility issues...so perhaps we grammarians can also devise a common AST structure that all impls could be confident would work across impls) Let the games begin! -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From zhixueyong at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 21:53:05 2006 From: zhixueyong at hotmail.com (Xue Yong Zhi) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:53:05 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <453EAC36.9020305@sun.com> Message-ID: > >Xue, would you be willing to merge the RubyFront parser in its current >form into this project, for the good of all mankind? > I'd like to. But the project admins have to give me write access to subversion first:) _________________________________________________________________ Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx From charles.nutter at sun.com Tue Oct 24 22:01:55 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:01:55 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453EC593.80201@sun.com> Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > I'd like to. But the project admins have to give me write access to > subversion first:) Give me your RubyForge username and I shall make the magic happen. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 22:32:07 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:32:07 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen In-Reply-To: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> References: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> Message-ID: <1161743527.15282.94.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 20:50 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > - Decide on a standard AST structure to be built out of this? (for > example, JRuby's AST is starting to differ from Ruby's, so even if we > port ParseTree we'll have compatibility issues...so perhaps we > grammarians can also devise a common AST structure that all impls could > be confident would work across impls) That sounds like a reasonable idea. We will also want that for the formal specification. Hopefully official Ruby will not have a tree-walking interpreter for much longer, and they could theoretically unify too. -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/b0f13486/attachment.bin From mental at rydia.net Tue Oct 24 22:36:49 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:36:49 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1161743810.15282.100.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 18:09 -0400, Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > As I said, anyone is welcome to use/change/fork the code -- it is BSD > license. That is not what the header on tree.g says: /** * Copyright (c) 2005-2006 Xue Yong Zhi. All rights reserved. */ If your intent is to offer the code under the BSD license, could you please change the "all rights reserved" language to a (no-advertising-clause) BSD license header in order to make the license explicit? -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061024/d5f3b0a7/attachment-0001.bin From charles.nutter at sun.com Wed Oct 25 05:53:13 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:53:13 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F3409.1000307@sun.com> Xue has been added to the project as a developer. Welcome! Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > >> >> Xue, would you be willing to merge the RubyFront parser in its current >> form into this project, for the good of all mankind? >> > > I'd like to. But the project admins have to give me write access to > subversion first:) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use your PC to make calls at very low rates > https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx > -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From zhixueyong at hotmail.com Wed Oct 25 12:18:26 2006 From: zhixueyong at hotmail.com (Xue Yong Zhi) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:18:26 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] RubyFront checked in In-Reply-To: <453F3409.1000307@sun.com> Message-ID: I just committed rubyfront to rubygrammar's repository. Please let me if there are something missing. It is in the top directory right now: http://rubyforge.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/?root=rubygrammar Hope it is useful for some people. >From: Charles Oliver Nutter >CC: rubygrammar-grammarians at rubyforge.org >Subject: Re: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:53:13 -0500 > >Xue has been added to the project as a developer. Welcome! > >Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > > > >> > >> Xue, would you be willing to merge the RubyFront parser in its current > >> form into this project, for the good of all mankind? > >> > > > > I'd like to. But the project admins have to give me write access to > > subversion first:) > > _________________________________________________________________ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001 From parrt at cs.usfca.edu Wed Oct 25 12:56:12 2006 From: parrt at cs.usfca.edu (Terence Parr) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:12 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1161722694.13048.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1161729133.15282.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <537647AB-F204-4E5B-8116-92997479652E@cs.usfca.edu> On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:32 PM, MenTaLguY wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 16:26 -0500, Nick Sieger wrote: >> I for one am still interested. I was looking at the rubyfront >> grammar >> this weekend and I don't think it should be too hard to port to ANTLR >> 3. >> >> Also, what about the idea of a multi-pass parser? With Ruby's syntax >> so complex, it might help to break down into several stages for >> understandability. > > That was Terence's opinion as well, if I remember correctly (Hi Ter!). > I've not had time to look at the RubyFront grammar deeply, but I was a > little surprised that Yong Zhi was apparently able to do heredocs > without multiple passes, actually. Hi Guys. :) Yeah, I got discouraged when I saw how hideous the lexing issue was in Ruby. blech. That said, a CharStream that did some fix up would make things MUCH easier, but not completely as foo [1] depends on some serious prior context (that is unavailable really to the lexer). Anyway, count me in for ANTLR v3 tech support and bug fixes. ;) Ter From parrt at cs.usfca.edu Wed Oct 25 12:58:15 2006 From: parrt at cs.usfca.edu (Terence Parr) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:58:15 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Comparison to RubyFront grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <616846F2-8410-4084-9B36-B18E1BBF00D0@cs.usfca.edu> On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Xue Yong Zhi wrote: > >> Nick Sieger and I (well, mostly Nick) were looking at the XRuby >> grammar at RubyConf. We generated a Java parser and compared it >> with our current YACC (Jay) based version. It wasn't much faster, >> unfortunately, but it would be much easier to work with and use >> for other projects. In addition, it avoids our hand-written >> (ported from C) lexer, which is a nasty bit of code. We did not do >> anything to confirm it was parsing correctly, however, so that >> would probably be the next step. > > Antlr is not famous for its speed:) In fact, quite a few folks from > yacc backgound are disappointed by its speed. Antlr v3 seems to be > faster. Yep, v3 is MUCH faster. note that due to java's lack of static data init, start up cost is very high for java lexers, but then they race. >> Nick made a few minor changes to the XRuby grammar and got it to >> work with AntlrWorks, which is Antlr v3-based. I do not believe he >> tried to generate a parser with v3. > > I would like to do a v3 parser, but won't start myself unless v3 is > out of beta and has documentation ready. Terence(ANTLR's dictator) > is very quiet since school started, so it does not look like he is > going to finish something soon. If everyone else want to do it I > would be very happy to help. I'm now getting back to bug fixes but must work on book at same time. Ter From werner.schuster at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 19:29:18 2006 From: werner.schuster at gmail.com (Werner Schuster (murphee)) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:29:18 +0200 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen In-Reply-To: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> References: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> Message-ID: <453FF34E.4000609@gmail.com> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > - Decide on a standard AST structure to be built out of this? (for > example, JRuby's AST is starting to differ from Ruby's, so even if we > port ParseTree we'll have compatibility issues...so perhaps we > Actually, I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a JRuby (pure JRuby, no Java code) version of parsetree (well, actually something that outputs the same nested lists as the original parsetree; porting the C code of parsetree isn't possible). I'm currently trying to get parsetree 1.6s testsuite to complete (50 failures to go) - and I believe there are some places where there are some differences between JRuby/CRuby ... notably on the :dasgn/:lasgn AST nodes. (Mind you: these might just be my own stupid errors). I can provide a preliminary version if someone wants to, but I'd rather minimize the number of failures and provide some samples before going public. murphee -- Blog @ http://jroller.com/page/murphee Maintainer of EclipseShell @ http://eclipse-shell.sourceforge.net/ From charles.nutter at sun.com Wed Oct 25 20:07:57 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen In-Reply-To: <453FF34E.4000609@gmail.com> References: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> <453FF34E.4000609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <453FFC5D.8080101@sun.com> Werner Schuster (murphee) wrote: > Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> - Decide on a standard AST structure to be built out of this? (for >> example, JRuby's AST is starting to differ from Ruby's, so even if we >> port ParseTree we'll have compatibility issues...so perhaps we >> > > Actually, I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a JRuby (pure > JRuby, no Java code) version of parsetree > (well, actually something that outputs the same nested lists as the > original parsetree; porting the C code of parsetree isn't possible). > > I'm currently trying to get parsetree 1.6s testsuite to complete (50 > failures to go) - and I believe there are some places where there are > some differences between JRuby/CRuby ... notably on the :dasgn/:lasgn > AST nodes. (Mind you: these might just be my own stupid errors). > > I can provide a preliminary version if someone wants to, but I'd rather > minimize the number of failures and provide some samples before going > public. There are definitely going to be things that differ...more and more as we start making our own changes to the grammar and AST for performance and compilation. However it will still be very useful to have parsetree working in any form, since we'll be able to hook up similar tools. Feel free to polish it up as you like, but maybe it could live in the jruby-extras project (or a project of your own). -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From werner.schuster at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 20:32:47 2006 From: werner.schuster at gmail.com (Werner Schuster (murphee)) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:32:47 +0200 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen In-Reply-To: <453FFC5D.8080101@sun.com> References: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> <453FF34E.4000609@gmail.com> <453FFC5D.8080101@sun.com> Message-ID: <4540022F.4080605@gmail.com> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> I can provide a preliminary version if someone wants to, but I'd rather >> minimize the number of failures and provide some samples before going >> public. > There are definitely going to be things that differ...more and more as > we start making our own changes to the grammar and AST for performance > and compilation. However it will still be very useful to have > parsetree working in any form, since we'll be able to hook up similar > tools. > Feel free to polish it up as you like, but maybe it could live in the > jruby-extras project (or a project of your own). Yeah, I'd considered asking for it to be added to jruby-extras. My rubyforge username is "murphee" if you'd like to add me as a dev, so I can put up my stuff on it's SVN (mostly to make it easier for me pester you with questions about the AST...). murphee murphee -- Blog @ http://jroller.com/page/murphee Maintainer of EclipseShell @ http://eclipse-shell.sourceforge.net/ From charles.nutter at sun.com Wed Oct 25 22:33:57 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:33:57 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Making it happen In-Reply-To: <4540022F.4080605@gmail.com> References: <453EC2EC.8060008@sun.com> <453FF34E.4000609@gmail.com> <453FFC5D.8080101@sun.com> <4540022F.4080605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45401E95.5050903@sun.com> Werner Schuster (murphee) wrote: > Yeah, I'd considered asking for it to be added to jruby-extras. My > rubyforge username is "murphee" if you'd like to add me as a dev, so I > can put up my stuff on it's SVN (mostly to make it easier for me pester > you with questions about the AST...). You have been added to jruby-extras. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From charles.nutter at sun.com Thu Oct 26 00:56:51 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:56:51 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] RubySpec Wiki back on the air Message-ID: <45404013.3090902@sun.com> I've got the RubySpec Wiki back up and running at www.headius.com/rubyspec. This isn't the final home or the final hardware, but it should be stable and fast for now. Let me know if anything looks broken, and feel free to start making updates if it all looks ok. When the eventual hardware is setup and working I'll xfer over the existing data. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com Blogging at headius.blogspot.com From nicksieger at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:32:08 2006 From: nicksieger at gmail.com (Nick Sieger) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:32:08 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Visualization of Ruby's grammar Message-ID: Thought you guys might find this interesting. I took parse.y and generated a dependency graph of it using ANTLRWorks. (Note that I didn't use Rubyfront's or Sara's ANTLR grammar, that could be something to do next). http://blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/27/visualization-of-rubys-grammar Any keen observations? Next steps? Cheers, /Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061027/55da6f98/attachment-0001.html From charles.nutter at sun.com Fri Oct 27 14:35:17 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:35:17 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Visualization of Ruby's grammar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45425165.8090008@sun.com> Nick Sieger wrote: > Thought you guys might find this interesting. I took parse.y and > generated a dependency graph of it using ANTLRWorks. (Note that I > didn't use Rubyfront's or Sara's ANTLR grammar, that could be something > to do next). > > http://blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/27/visualization-of-rubys-grammar > > Any keen observations? Next steps? So how far off from a usable grammar is what you fed to ANTLRWorks? Is this mostly a neat way to visualize the YACC grammar, or is this something usable? Anything that can reliably take the YACC grammar, massage it a bit, and produce a new ANLTR grammar out of that could be pretty useful. -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com From charles.nutter at sun.com Fri Oct 27 14:36:04 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:36:04 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? Message-ID: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> Is anyone opposed to having replies go straight to the mailing list? I really hate having one list out of my whole set of subscriptions that requires doing "reply all" rather than just "reply". -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com From parrt at cs.usfca.edu Fri Oct 27 16:27:37 2006 From: parrt at cs.usfca.edu (Terence Parr) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:27:37 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Visualization of Ruby's grammar In-Reply-To: <45425165.8090008@sun.com> References: <45425165.8090008@sun.com> Message-ID: <412A8724-C21D-4516-8851-17606CF4B889@cs.usfca.edu> On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > Nick Sieger wrote: >> Thought you guys might find this interesting. I took parse.y and >> generated a dependency graph of it using ANTLRWorks. (Note that I >> didn't use Rubyfront's or Sara's ANTLR grammar, that could be >> something >> to do next). >> >> http://blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/27/visualization-of- >> rubys-grammar >> >> Any keen observations? Next steps? > > So how far off from a usable grammar is what you fed to ANTLRWorks? Is > this mostly a neat way to visualize the YACC grammar, or is this > something usable? Anything that can reliably take the YACC grammar, > massage it a bit, and produce a new ANLTR grammar out of that could be > pretty useful. Yeah, perhaps we should integrate the bison converter into ANTLRWorks. :) Note that AW has some refactoring in there already to do "..." to '...' and other stuff. Ter From ryand-ruby at zenspider.com Fri Oct 27 17:00:09 2006 From: ryand-ruby at zenspider.com (Ryan Davis) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:00:09 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> Message-ID: <8A32D415-7980-477C-BD77-B75F9424AB97@zenspider.com> On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > Is anyone opposed to having replies go straight to the mailing list? I > really hate having one list out of my whole set of subscriptions that > requires doing "reply all" rather than just "reply". I was just about to send a mail about this... please please please switch it. From mental at rydia.net Fri Oct 27 17:27:31 2006 From: mental at rydia.net (MenTaLguY) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:27:31 -0400 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> Message-ID: <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:36 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > Is anyone opposed to having replies go straight to the mailing list? I > really hate having one list out of my whole set of subscriptions that > requires doing "reply all" rather than just "reply". I'm in the other boat, actually. Most of the lists I'm on give you a choice between replying to the sender and replying to the list. I guess I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do find it frustrating sometimes if "reply to sender" doesn't work. -mental -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061027/b8f038c9/attachment.bin From parrt at cs.usfca.edu Fri Oct 27 20:53:30 2006 From: parrt at cs.usfca.edu (Terence Parr) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:53:30 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <40E709D0-97D5-4D2F-B21A-94E7026666F1@cs.usfca.edu> On Oct 27, 2006, at 2:27 PM, MenTaLguY wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:36 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> Is anyone opposed to having replies go straight to the mailing >> list? I >> really hate having one list out of my whole set of subscriptions that >> requires doing "reply all" rather than just "reply". > > I'm in the other boat, actually. Most of the lists I'm on give you a > choice between replying to the sender and replying to the list. > > I guess I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do find it > frustrating sometimes if "reply to sender" doesn't work. Yeah, we went back and forth on this for antlr-interest. It's annoying as hell, but anything else causes mail loops due to bounced mail and vacation mail...really much worse. No good solution :( Ter From ryand-ruby at zenspider.com Fri Oct 27 23:21:05 2006 From: ryand-ruby at zenspider.com (Ryan Davis) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:21:05 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <40E709D0-97D5-4D2F-B21A-94E7026666F1@cs.usfca.edu> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <40E709D0-97D5-4D2F-B21A-94E7026666F1@cs.usfca.edu> Message-ID: <3F695473-8395-45F4-B9BD-A9BA050504AD@zenspider.com> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Terence Parr wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2006, at 2:27 PM, MenTaLguY wrote: > >> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:36 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >>> Is anyone opposed to having replies go straight to the mailing >>> list? I >>> really hate having one list out of my whole set of subscriptions >>> that >>> requires doing "reply all" rather than just "reply". >> >> I'm in the other boat, actually. Most of the lists I'm on give you a >> choice between replying to the sender and replying to the list. >> >> I guess I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do find it >> frustrating sometimes if "reply to sender" doesn't work. > > Yeah, we went back and forth on this for antlr-interest. It's > annoying as hell, but anything else causes mail loops due to bounced > mail and vacation mail...really much worse. No good solution :( I suspect it is a function of size. We have 150ish on our seattle.rb mailing list and it isn't a problem. From nicksieger at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 00:23:11 2006 From: nicksieger at gmail.com (Nick Sieger) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Visualization of Ruby's grammar In-Reply-To: <45425165.8090008@sun.com> References: <45425165.8090008@sun.com> Message-ID: On 10/27/06, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > > > So how far off from a usable grammar is what you fed to ANTLRWorks? Is > this mostly a neat way to visualize the YACC grammar, or is this > something usable? Anything that can reliably take the YACC grammar, > massage it a bit, and produce a new ANLTR grammar out of that could be > pretty useful. Are you asking for a quick or automated way to (re-) generate the ANTLR 3 grammar from parse.y? It could be done, if necessary, but it would be a little painful. As to whether this YACC-based grammar is usable, I'm not sure yet. Extended string handling (heredocs, expanded strings, quoting operators) aren't present at all. I still would like to compare it with Rubyfront's grammar to see how much is missing, how they line up. Maybe I'll see if I can get this to actually parse Ruby code and I'll let you know how much of the Ruby libraries it can handle. /Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygrammar-grammarians/attachments/20061027/4466ffb1/attachment.html From charles.nutter at sun.com Sat Oct 28 05:11:39 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:11:39 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <3F695473-8395-45F4-B9BD-A9BA050504AD@zenspider.com> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <40E709D0-97D5-4D2F-B21A-94E7026666F1@cs.usfca.edu> <3F695473-8395-45F4-B9BD-A9BA050504AD@zenspider.com> Message-ID: <45431ECB.8000001@sun.com> Ryan Davis wrote: > I suspect it is a function of size. We have 150ish on our seattle.rb > mailing list and it isn't a problem. I'll make the change...in my experience almost all auto-responders now have logic in them to only respond once, and we've only got a handful of folks on this list. If it becomes a problem, we can switch it back. Pragmatism! -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com From charles.nutter at sun.com Sat Oct 28 05:13:04 2006 From: charles.nutter at sun.com (Charles Oliver Nutter) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:13:04 -0500 Subject: [grammarians] Test message Message-ID: <45431F20.1070506@sun.com> -- Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec headius at headius.com -- charles.nutter at sun.com From parrt at cs.usfca.edu Sat Oct 28 12:19:51 2006 From: parrt at cs.usfca.edu (Terence Parr) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:19:51 -0700 Subject: [grammarians] Reply directly to list? In-Reply-To: <3F695473-8395-45F4-B9BD-A9BA050504AD@zenspider.com> References: <45425194.6080401@sun.com> <1161984451.3729.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <40E709D0-97D5-4D2F-B21A-94E7026666F1@cs.usfca.edu> <3F695473-8395-45F4-B9BD-A9BA050504AD@zenspider.com> Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Ryan Davis wrote: >> >> Yeah, we went back and forth on this for antlr-interest. It's >> annoying as hell, but anything else causes mail loops due to bounced >> mail and vacation mail...really much worse. No good solution :( > > I suspect it is a function of size. We have 150ish on our > seattle.rb mailing list and it isn't a problem. Ah! Right...for this small list, we should be ok. Ter