Thanks, Tito, and a happy christmas to you and everyone here.

Victor
On 24 Dec 2011, at 10:35, Tito Latini wrote:

> The example of the manual `pconvolve.csd' doesn't work
> with the new parser. The cause is in this line:
> 
>  kmix = (kmix < 0 || kmix > 1 ? .5 : kmix)
> 
> There is a problem of precedence with the '?' operator.
> The precedences in `csound_orc.y' are confused for me,
> and they doesn't follow the rules of the C language.
> However, I have fixed only the bug. A possible reorganization of the
> precedences for the operators (ala C) is
> 
> %left '?'
> %left S_OR
> %left S_AND
> %left '|'
> %left '&'
> %left S_EQ S_NEQ
> %left S_LT S_GT S_LEQ S_GEQ
> %left S_BITSHIFT_LEFT S_BITSHIFT_RIGHT
> %left '+' '-'
> %left '*' '/' '%'
> %right '~' S_UNOT S_UMINUS
> 
> Merry Xmas at All
> 
> The Grinch
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

The precedence cannot (necessarily) be changed like this.  It must be
the same as the old parser which is not (necessarily) the same as C.
I am very happy for you to work on it -- never been that good at
precedence

==John ffitch

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Well, we've been mostly following that we need to preserve semantics
with the old parser.  This looks like it is a case where the new
parser is incorrect, if the old parser is following C semantics.  So
any move to fix that would be awesome, IMO.

Thanks!
steven

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Tito Latini  wrote:
> The old parser seems c-like, but the new is not always complatible
> with the old, mostly with the bitwise operators. Here is an example
>
> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
> | op                         | C | old parser | new parser |
> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
> | 1 + 1 & 1                  | 0 |          0 |          2 |
> | 1 + 1 | 1                  | 3 |          3 |          2 |
> | 1 + 1 << 1                 | 4 |          4 |          3 |
> | 2 + 2 >> 1                 | 2 |          2 |          3 |
> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
>
> It isn't enough to modify only the precedence in yacc, it is also
> probably necessary to see the rule for `expr' again. The simplest
> solution is to recommend the use of the parentheses.
>
> (tito)
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:51:56PM -0500, Steven Yi wrote:
>> I'm curious, what are the exact differences between what is in the old
>> parser and what is in C?  Also, it seems to me that the general precedence
>> rules for this area are pretty much standardized amongst various languages.
>>  Could someone provide an example of something that would work in the old
>> parser but not in C?  Also, might we consider moving over to the C-style
>> for precedence and consider the old parser implementation a bug?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> steven
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:02 AM, john ffitch wrote:
>>
>> > The precedence cannot (necessarily) be changed like this.  It must be
>> > the same as the old parser which is not (necessarily) the same as C.
>> > I am very happy for you to work on it -- never been that good at
>> > precedence
>> >
>> > ==John ffitch
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual 
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure 
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Tito -- do make the changes.  I think that the new parser implemnets what 
I think is correct and C is mathematically wrong -- based on a problem in 
BCPL I seem to remember.  But compatability is everything here.  Shame 
though
==John ff


On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Steven Yi wrote:

> Well, we've been mostly following that we need to preserve semantics
> with the old parser.  This looks like it is a case where the new
> parser is incorrect, if the old parser is following C semantics.  So
> any move to fix that would be awesome, IMO.
>
> Thanks!
> steven
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Tito Latini  wrote:
>> The old parser seems c-like, but the new is not always complatible
>> with the old, mostly with the bitwise operators. Here is an example
>>
>> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
>> | op                         | C | old parser | new parser |
>> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
>> | 1 + 1 & 1                  | 0 |          0 |          2 |
>> | 1 + 1 | 1                  | 3 |          3 |          2 |
>> | 1 + 1 << 1                 | 4 |          4 |          3 |
>> | 2 + 2 >> 1                 | 2 |          2 |          3 |
>> |----------------------------+---+------------+------------|
>>
>> It isn't enough to modify only the precedence in yacc, it is also
>> probably necessary to see the rule for `expr' again. The simplest
>> solution is to recommend the use of the parentheses.
>>
>> (tito)
>>

well done.
On 1 Jan 2012, at 18:05, Tito Latini wrote:

> good news
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
> infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
> virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual 
> desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure 
> costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual 
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure 
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net