Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Perl is not Dynamically Parseable

by Jeffrey Kegler (Friar)
on Oct 12, 2009 at 06:01 UTC ( #800609=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Perl is not Dynamically Parseable
in thread Perl is not Dynamically Parseable

It's fallacious because you need to know you will reach the code which can make the determination. And to know, in general, that you will reach that nullarity-determining code you've got to know the answer to the Halting Problem in every form it can take. Being able to determine the nullarity of a Perl function, given arbitrary Perl code, amounts to being able to fully predict the operation of a Turing machine.


Comment on Re^2: Perl is not Dynamically Parseable
Re^3: Perl is not Dynamically Parseable
by ikegami (Pope) on Oct 12, 2009 at 06:23 UTC

    It's fallacious because you need to know you will reach the code which can make the determination

    That makes no sense. No matter what code is being compiled or executed, it can be determined whether any Perl function has a nullary prototype or not. No piece of Perl code needs to be reached.

      Before returning to the subject of this thread, I'd like to point out that ikegami is one of the very best contributors to Perlmonks. The quality of his nodes is even higher than his experience ranking indicates. A monk once suggested that an efficient way to deepen your Perl knowledge is simply to go to the list of ikegami nodes, and read, read, read. I've done this several times, and I'm happy to pass the suggestion on.

        Considering he and I are on the same page, I hope it makes things clearer *for you* so you can go address the error in your post.

        I'm happy to revise my node so it explains things better.

        You discuss "what is the prototype of a function after parsing" (that's knowable contrary to your claims) rather than "what will be the prototype of a function after parsing" (that's not knowable).

        Or put differently, you talk about one instance of the parser when the problem is with differences in the output of different instances of the parser.

        If there's a fallacy, it's assuming that the output of an instance of the parser will be the same as the output of another instance of the parser. That would be a very bad fallacy to make since that's the general hypothesis that needs proving or disproving.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://800609]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-08-30 01:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (291 votes), past polls