diff options
| author | Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochbaum@gmail.com> | 2020-07-20 14:05:36 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochbaum@gmail.com> | 2020-07-20 14:05:36 -0400 |
| commit | e52d50ed594dd5626523ca7931315e47bde8c9d1 (patch) | |
| tree | d355718d8f81ea0773cd177e5b5eb17e043a5da3 /docs/doc/context.html | |
| parent | 883eda3df8e162e2d8a62b4d1ec03eadcf8b8069 (diff) | |
Make header id slugs match Github's
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/doc/context.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/doc/context.html | 8 |
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/docs/doc/context.html b/docs/doc/context.html index 90963840..b4c5616f 100644 --- a/docs/doc/context.html +++ b/docs/doc/context.html @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ <head><link href="../style.css" rel="stylesheet"/></head> <div class="nav"><a href="https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN">BQN</a></div> -<h1 id="bqn-s-context-free-grammar">BQN's context-free grammar</h1> +<h1 id="bqns-context-free-grammar">BQN's context-free grammar</h1> <p>APL has a problem. To illustrate, let's look at an APL expression:</p> <pre><span class='Value'>a</span> <span class='Value'>b</span> <span class='Value'>c</span> <span class='Value'>d</span> <span class='Value'>e</span> </pre> @@ -12,12 +12,12 @@ <pre><span class='Value'>a</span> <span class='Function'>B</span> <span class='Function'>C</span> <span class='Modifier'>_d</span> <span class='Value'>e</span> </pre> <p>Here, the lowercase spelling indicates that <code><span class='Value'>a</span></code> and <code><span class='Value'>e</span></code> are to be treated as subjects ("arrays" in APL) while the uppercase spelling of variables <code><span class='Function'>B</span></code> and <code><span class='Function'>C</span></code> are used as functions and <code><span class='Modifier'>_d</span></code> is a 1-modifier ("monadic operator"). Like parentheses for function application, the spelling is not inherent to the variable values used, but instead indicates their grammatical role in this particular expression. A variable has no inherent spelling and can be used in any role, so the names <code><span class='Value'>a</span></code>, <code><span class='Function'>A</span></code>, <code><span class='Modifier'>_a</span></code>, and <code><span class='Modifier2'>_a_</span></code> all refer to exact same variable, but in different roles; typically we use the lowercase name to refer to the variable in isolation—all values are nouns when speaking about them in English. While we still don't know anything about what values <code><span class='Value'>a</span></code>, <code><span class='Value'>b</span></code>, <code><span class='Value'>c</span></code>, and so on have, we know how they interact in the line of code above.</p> -<h2 id="is-grammatical-context-really-a-problem-">Is grammatical context really a problem?</h2> +<h2 id="is-grammatical-context-really-a-problem">Is grammatical context really a problem?</h2> <p>Yes, in the sense of <a href="../problems.html">problems with BQN</a>. A grammar that uses context is harder for humans to read and machines to execute. A particular difficulty is that parts of an expression you don't yet understand can interfere with parts you do, making it difficult to work through an unknown codebase.</p> <p>One difficulty beginners to APL will encounter is that code in APL at first appears like a string of undifferentiated symbols. For example, a tacit Unique Mask implementation <code><span class='Value'>⍳⍨</span><span class='Function'>=</span><span class='Value'>⍳</span><span class='Modifier2'>∘</span><span class='Function'>≢</span></code> consists of six largely unfamiliar characters with little to distinguish them (in fact, the one obvious bit of structure, the repeated <code><span class='Value'>⍳</span></code>, is misleading as it means different things in each case!). Simply placing parentheses into the expression, like <code><span class='Paren'>(</span><span class='Value'>⍳⍨</span><span class='Paren'>)</span><span class='Function'>=</span><span class='Paren'>(</span><span class='Value'>⍳</span><span class='Modifier2'>∘</span><span class='Function'>≢</span><span class='Paren'>)</span></code>, can be a great help to a beginner, and part of learning APL is to naturally see where the parentheses should go. The equivalent BQN expression, <code><span class='Function'>⊐</span><span class='Modifier'>˜</span><span class='Function'>=↕</span><span class='Modifier2'>∘</span><span class='Function'>≠</span></code>, will likely appear equally intimidating at first, but the path to learning which things apply to which is much shorter: rather than learning the entire list of APL primitives, a beginner just needs to know that superscript characters like <code><span class='Modifier'>˜</span></code> are 1-modifiers and characters like <code><span class='Modifier2'>∘</span></code> with unbroken circles are 2-modifiers before beginning to learn the BQN grammar that will explain how to tie the various parts together.</p> <p>This sounds like a distant concern to a master of APL or a computer that has no difficulty memorizing a few dozen glyphs. Quite the opposite: the same concern applies to variables whenever you begin work with an unfamiliar codebase! Many APL programmers even enforce variable name conventions to ensure they know the class of a variable. By having such a system built in, BQN keeps you from having to rely on programmers following a style guide, and also allows greater flexibility, including <a href="functional.html">functional programming</a>, as we'll see later.</p> <p>Shouldn't a codebase define all the variables it uses, so we can see their class from the definition? Not always: consider that in a language with libraries, code might be imported from dependencies. Many APLs also have some dynamic features that can allow a variable to have more than one class, such as the <code><span class='Value'>⍺</span><span class='Gets'>←</span><span class='Function'>⊢</span></code> pattern in a dfn that makes <code><span class='Value'>⍺</span></code> an array in the dyadic case but a function in the monadic case. Regardless, searching for a definition somewhere in the code is certainly a lot more work than knowing the class just from looking! One final difficulty is that even one unknown can delay understanding of an entire expression. Suppose in <code><span class='Function'>A</span> <span class='Function'>B</span> <span class='Value'>c</span></code>, <code><span class='Function'>B</span></code> is a function and <code><span class='Value'>c</span></code> is an array, and both values are known to be constant. If <code><span class='Function'>A</span></code> is known to be a function (even if its value is not yet known), its right argument <code><span class='Function'>B</span> <span class='Value'>c</span></code> can be evaluated ahead of time. But if <code><span class='Function'>A</span></code>'s type isn't known, it's impossible to know if this optimization is worth it, because if it is an array, <code><span class='Function'>B</span></code> will instead be called dyadically.</p> -<h2 id="bqn-s-spelling-system">BQN's spelling system</h2> +<h2 id="bqns-spelling-system">BQN's spelling system</h2> <p>BQN's expression grammar is a simplified version of the typical APL, removing some oddities like niladic functions and the two-glyph Outer Product operator. Every value can be used in any of four syntactic roles:</p> <table> <thead> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ <p>BQN's variables use another system, where the spelling indicates how the variable's value is used. A variable spelled with a lowercase first letter, like <code><span class='Value'>var</span></code>, is a subject. Spelled with an uppercase first letter, like <code><span class='Function'>Var</span></code>, it is a function. Underscores are placed where operands apply to indicate a 1-modifier <code><span class='Modifier'>_var</span></code> or 2-modifier <code><span class='Modifier2'>_var_</span></code>. Other than the first letter or underscore, variables are case-insensitive.</p> <p>The associations between spelling and syntactic role are considered part of BQN's <a href="../spec/token.html">token formation rules</a>.</p> <p>One rule for typing is also best considered to be a pre-parsing rule like the spelling system: the role of a brace construct <code><span class='Brace'>{}</span></code> with no header is determined by which special arguments it uses: it's a subject if there are none, but a <code><span class='Value'>𝕨</span></code> or <code><span class='Value'>𝕩</span></code> makes it at least a function, an <code><span class='Function'>𝔽</span></code> makes it a 1- or 2-modifier, and a <code><span class='Function'>𝔾</span></code> always makes it a 2-modifier.</p> -<h2 id="bqn-s-grammar">BQN's grammar</h2> +<h2 id="bqns-grammar">BQN's grammar</h2> <p>A formal treatment is included in <a href="../spec/grammar.html">the spec</a>. BQN's grammar—the ways syntactic roles interact—follows the original APL model (plus trains) closely, with allowances for new features like list notation. In order to keep BQN's syntax context-free, the syntactic role of any expression must be known from its contents, just like tokens.</p> <p>Here is a table of the APL-derived modifier and function application rules:</p> <table> |