Your wrong, and your asking the wrong questions. What I don't have a firm grasp on is how to explain it to others, that is all.
I'm not writing a compiler for it, I don't need one.
I'm not going to explain it further because I've already explained it more than enough. If you had a single grain of faith in my intelligence you would be able to figure it out, but you don't your completely and unfairly biased against me because I am having difficulty explaining it in a manner that you understand. I'm sorry I don't have sufficient training in your methods and thinking to explain it to you. I'm sorry that you can't find it in yourself to really think about it properly. I'm sorry OK?????
It's so simple, all this stuff that has been bandied about is all so complex, how can you add obscurity to clarity?
You have a simple set of process order precedence for tag types, and a soft-coded set of symbols to use with them, and that is all you need to construct ANY system. That is fact, it cannot be dis-proven because it is CORRECT. FACT, FULLSTOP, PERIOD.
In reply to Re^4: Is an aXML compiler possible?
by Logicus
in thread Is an aXML compiler possible?
by Logicus
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |