[Info-vax] Intel proposal to simplify x86-64

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2023-06-11 16:06, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <u633ve$m32$1 at news.misty.com>,
> Johnny Billquist  <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>> On 2023-06-10 14:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <u61md6$49j$1 at panix2.panix.com>,
>>> Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Dan Cross <cross at spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>>> Believe it or not, `sed` is actually Turing complete; I imagine
>>>>> that TECO is as well.  So in some absolute sense, both are
>>>>> equally powerful.
>>>>
>>>> If that were the case, one could write some yacc code to turn sed scripts
>>>> into teco scripts.  This may hurt your brain.
>>>
>>> I don't know if yacc would be the best tool for that, but yeah,
>>> it sounds very doable.  It'd be an interesting hack, if nothing
>>> else.
>>
>> It would just be pure, utter madness.
> 
> Heh.
> 
>> But for sure, very doable.
>> yacc is a tool for writing compilers, but I'm almost suspecting it's a
>> bit of overkill in this case, and might make for a more complex solution
>> in the end.
> 
> Yeah.  Yacc really wants to generate an LALR(1) parser for a
> context-free grammar; that's probably fine for sed, but it does
> seem to be a bit like cutting butter with a chainsaw.  I don't
> know if that would handle TECO, though (quite possibly, but I
> don't know enough about TECO's language to say).

Doable. But I like the analog of butter and chainsaws. That's pretty 
much what it feels like in my head.

There is sortof a grammar in teco, but it's rather simplistic. Not that 
I think sed is much more complicated, but I'm less familiar with sed...

   Johnny