|
|
@@ -154,7 +154,8 @@ Need to give thanks to
|
|
|
just shows an example. I would recommend reading my blog post: a crash course on
|
|
|
notation in PL theory, especially the sections on Definition by Rules
|
|
|
and Language Syntax and Grammars. -JGS}
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
+\marginpar{\scriptsize The lambda calculus is more complex of an example that what we really
|
|
|
+ need at this point. I think we can make due with just integers and arithmetic. -JGS}
|
|
|
% \begin{enumerate}
|
|
|
% \item language representation
|
|
|
% \item reading grammars
|
|
|
@@ -171,6 +172,10 @@ purposes, we use Racket syntax.
|
|
|
op ::= + | - | *
|
|
|
exp ::= n | (op exp*) | x | (lambda (x) exp) | (exp exp)
|
|
|
\end{verbatim}
|
|
|
+\marginpar{\scriptsize Regarding de-Bruijnizing as an example... that strikes me
|
|
|
+ as something that may be foreign to many readers. The examples in this
|
|
|
+ first chapter should try to be simple and hopefully connect with things
|
|
|
+ that the reader is already familiar with. -JGS}
|
|
|
With this specification, we can more easily perform \textit{syntax
|
|
|
transformations} on any expression within the given language (i.e.,
|
|
|
\(\lambda\)-calculus). In the above AST, the syntax {\tt exp*} signifies
|
jsiek