MtnViewJohn wrote:I know! I have veered off into L-systems or something. Mark and Chris are probably shaking their heads. We can argue that recursion limiting is a convenient shortcut that eliminates tedium and improves clarity. But rebouncing at the recursion limit is all about enabling new, non-CF, stuff. But it would be so cool.
Now I see why your two friends don't say anything - But I'm sure they hate me less as they hate you.
Well - we have managed to skew things so that they look clear and clean under the CF light, until... rebouncing. The programming language argument can still be used, but you're pushing the limits, ho you nasty John !
MtnViewJohn wrote:L-systems or something.
Nasty
lazy John !
Well, I guess I can live with that.
I wish you courage for the implementation.
Btw, a last comment on syntax, I was about to forget.
would mean "trigger A if parent rule's n is < 1, and set n of A to 10". This is odd having the same character "n" used for two different
n : the one for A, the one for the parent rule.
Maybe
would be clearer, although ugly and verbose.
Some options I prefer :
would be C like
would be perl-like
would be perl-like
is C-like again, and nasty-lazy-speaking, going towards a turing-complete machine.