I think, left to right More reasonable.
Please clarify: Right-to-left or left-to-right?
如需更全面地了解编译器优化，请参阅优化注意事项.
- 登录以发表评论
星期二, 14/06/2011 - 10:39
- 登录以发表评论
星期三, 15/06/2011 - 09:21
Hi,
I agree left toright might be sensible and easy to implement if it may. But given that we are 12 days to the closing of problem set 3 (June 27), I would want to do minimal changes to the problem statement unless really required.
Thanks
-Rama
- 登录以发表评论
星期三, 15/06/2011 - 09:41
thans Rama
If the definition of priority * /" > " - + ".
then the Right-to-left Poland expression can be more easily .
Now my output is: 20.0000000000
- 登录以发表评论
星期三, 15/06/2011 - 11:13
Rama, Please, just say which it is. I thinkyou mean that we'll stick with the original "right to left" statement. john
- 登录以发表评论
星期三, 15/06/2011 - 12:30
Hi,
Yes, I mean that we will stick with the original "right to left".
Thanks
-Rama
- 登录以发表评论
星期四, 16/06/2011 - 19:15
that's my head exploding :-D Thanks for the clarification.
- 登录以发表评论
星期四, 16/06/2011 - 19:48
Let me help. This is not that hard, at least for recursive-descent:
LTR:
ParseExpr() {
expr = ParseAtomic();
while (token is binaryop) {
expr = MakeBinaryExpr(token, expr, ParseAtomic());
}
}
RTL:
ParseExpr() {
expr = ParseAtomic();
if (token is binaryop) {
expr = MakeBinaryExpr(token, expr, ParseExpr());
}
}
Please clarify: Right-to-left or left-to-right?
Here http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/showpost.php?p=152354
Rama said "right to left" as the default operator order. Did he really mean "left to right"? Right-to-left is terribly non-standard and unintuitive, but if that's the spec, then that's the spec. For example consider: 15 + 15 / 3 l-t-r = 10 r-t-l = 20