|
I'm just saying I've never heard it used in this way, and commenting on the results of my Google search. If that makes me an idiot, I'm not gonna lose much sleep over the name-calling. I've been called worse. 
Mark_Wallace wrote: I doubt you'll profit from it.
I don't think you're really proving your point with this one - to me that reads the same as "there's no money to be made from it", and it makes sense (again, to me) in this context.
But again...it could very well be a regional thing, and I'm not a native speaker. I'll keep an ear out for it.
And you know what? In hindsight, my response was rather dismissive of you, and I should know better. So let me take it back and apologize. ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) ?
|
|
|
|
|
Annoyed and disheartened Hufflepuff takes uninitiated band for Lost Empire. (4, 3, 4)
|
|
|
|
|
Lost the plot ? don't know why though 
"We can't stop here - this is bat country" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
F**K the Clue ???
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we clearly have no idea - so what was it?
And you are up again tomorrow!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Huff and Puff. Do you see it now?
|
|
|
|
|
Annoyed
and disheartened Hufflepuff HUFFlePUFF
takes (holds)
Uninitiated band bAND
for Lost Empire.
HUFF AND PUFF.
No idea where the Lost Empire comes into it.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OMG , this is the most weird complicated CCC I have seen.
"Takes" means replace "the Lost Empire" (LE) with the uninitiated band!!!
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem so bad now I know the answer, but I think what threw me was I didn't expect so much of the answer to be plain text in the clue!
Plus "huff and puff" isn't an obvious phrase for annoyed 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reasonably glad I didn't get it, really. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
disheartened, (remove the heart (centre))
Lost Empire (LE)
huffLEPuff
It's the bit you need to remove, I'm guessing
|
|
|
|
|
|
super has it right for Lost Empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty good -- and very accurate, making it especially useful for ESL people.
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd bookmark a twitter page...!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So this is the kind of code I have to completely remake.
This is part of convoluted parser that's not even recursive descent, so it's next to impossible to debug. It's generated and table driven, calling helper methods like this ugly thing below:
internal static RuleDesc MkDummyRuleDesc( LexCategory cat, AAST aast ) {
RuleDesc result = new RuleDesc();
result.pSpan = null;
result.aSpan = aast.AtStart;
result.isBarAction = false;
result.isPredDummyRule = true;
result.pattern = String.Format( CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, "{{{0}}}", cat.Name );
result.list = new List<StartState>();
result.ParseRE( aast );
result.list.Add( aast.StartStateValue( cat.PredDummyName ) );
return result;
}
I've included all the comments.
I have no idea what this does, or why dummy rules would have to be made in the first place. I'm not even clear on what a rule is, although I have a vague idea.
This code has no documentation. At best, it's mostly a reimplementation of lex in C#, so I kind of know what inputs it accepts from the lex man pages. It has flex extensions too though but not all of them. Who knows what it supports? I'm not even sure the original author does and the primary engine hasn't been updated in 6 years.
Even if i get this working how I want it will probably always be C# only unless i want to debug slang enough to get it to work with it or retool all of the code generation to use the codedom by hand. Ugh.
And that's not even the worst bit.
I have half a mind to leave the parser in place, preparse my desired document format, and then write out a document to this parser spec format in memory and then feed it to it that way, but what a nasty mess!
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I wrote a parser and lexer from scratch. Sure, code generation helps, but it just shifts the problem to one of getting the grammar right and fixing it for unusual cases. Ever looked at the C++ quasi-grammar sprinkled throughout cppreference.com[^]? I'd hardly know where to begin with such shite. Of course, it's not the fault of that site, which I consult frequently. It's probably inevitable when a language continually evolves while being reluctant to deprecate anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, my previous version of Rolex used my own hand rolled parser, but this version is using the Gplex engine and I want to keep the regex syntax the same as Gplex - that and it's near impossible to build up the regex trees for gplex on my own - the trees are so convoluted that i'm basically stuck using the parser they gave me.
I found that the regex parsing part - that subset, is handrolled recursive descent so that helps at least, but it's still ugly.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Have you considered using Vaughan Pratt’s top-down operator precedence parsing?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm lexing, not parsing. The key here is speed, and that means stackless DFA.
Top down is easy, I've already built a zillion top down parsers including Parsley: A Recursive Descent Parser Generator in C#[^]
But I'm just looking for an efficient DFA lexer engine that handles unicode. GPLEX does it but the output is ugly and multi-file, and the input doc is fugly and looks like a lex spec, so I'm gutting gplex and changing the input and outputs but keeping the engine, if that makes sense.
Right now I've got the output where i like it but I'm working on changing the input spec.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you think a stackless DFA is faster?
|
|
|
|
|
simple. less work to do
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
