I realized I was going a little nuts when I realized I'd need a stack in T-SQL
-
Then I discovered I wasn't entirely alone in this: Implement a stack in SQL Server using stored procedures – SQLServerCentral[^] Although I will be using temporary tables instead of external stored procedures. It's weird enough driving simple finite automata from a database, but driving push-down automata from inside a database is a little insane.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
Then I discovered I wasn't entirely alone in this: Implement a stack in SQL Server using stored procedures – SQLServerCentral[^] Although I will be using temporary tables instead of external stored procedures. It's weird enough driving simple finite automata from a database, but driving push-down automata from inside a database is a little insane.
Real programmers use butterflies
You're crazy. I love it! :laugh: But yes, a temptable and a row pointer variable is probably the right way to do it. If you really need to. :)
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Then I discovered I wasn't entirely alone in this: Implement a stack in SQL Server using stored procedures – SQLServerCentral[^] Although I will be using temporary tables instead of external stored procedures. It's weird enough driving simple finite automata from a database, but driving push-down automata from inside a database is a little insane.
Real programmers use butterflies
Use the right tool for the right job. :sigh:
-
Use the right tool for the right job. :sigh:
That doesn't sound like fun at all. :laugh:
Real programmers use butterflies
-
That doesn't sound like fun at all. :laugh:
Real programmers use butterflies
I have created Turing Machines in T-SQL, but only to prove that it can be done, not for reals.
-
I have created Turing Machines in T-SQL, but only to prove that it can be done, not for reals.
The primary reason I'm targeting T-SQL with a parser is to ensure that my code generation templates are flexible enough to be able to target most any language.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
The primary reason I'm targeting T-SQL with a parser is to ensure that my code generation templates are flexible enough to be able to target most any language.
Real programmers use butterflies
Keep at it I'm looking forward to the article.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
-
Keep at it I'm looking forward to the article.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
Have you seen Reggie lately? I wrote this Dismantling Reggie[^] which covers how Reggie works. The thing is, Norm works the same way, but instead of FA state machines for lexers and matchers, it writes PDA state machines for parsers. It's shockingly similar, so understanding how Reggie works will make understanding Norm par for the course. As far as understanding the process of generating the parse tables that the code is generated from, I've covered that in several previous articles and I won't be covering it that much when I cover Norm, any more than I covered the workings of the regular expression engine when covering Reggie. I'm just putting that out there FWIW, and so you know what to expect.
Real programmers use butterflies
