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

[Dan Cross]

In article <u65e8r$g8o$3 at news.misty.com>,
Johnny Billquist  <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>On 2023-06-11 16:06, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <u633ve$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...

Oh, do you have a pointer to the grammar?  From what little I've
seen, it appears to be context-sensitive.

	- Dan C.