I have easily read more than a dozen articles over the years on this parsing strategy, including Pratt's original paper, and in every case I have read "donation." But you are 100% right! All of my sources actually use denotation. MY MIND IS FREAKING BLOWN.

I am going to go meditate on the subjectivity of my reality. If I am wrong about this, what else am I wrong about?

LOL. I don't think it's that serious. Maybe it's the Berenstain Bears Effect, Mandela Effect, Glitch in the Matrix, or ... a slight lack of your favorite morning pick me up. :D In any case, looking forward to reading the next article.

Personally, at some point, I'd like to write a Pratt Parser in C99. I'd like to explore the one sentiment you had that OOP has a negative effect on understanding Pratt Parsers.

Off-topic, but I just have to ask: does "TFA" mean what I think it means? (i.e. the same as in "RTFA") I have seen that acronym used more and more lately, and I always trip up when I read it in a rather polite sentence.

You read me correctly. I did intend the politer version of TFA of RTFA ("Read/The Fine Article"). IMO, Robert does a great job of setting up Pratt Parsing and his intent to write a Pratt Parser Generator. As such, it is a "Fine Article" adding to the compendium of Pratt Parsing & Operator Precedence Parsing.

I hear you though, there are many that (overly) use passive-aggressive and/or aggressive language in the form of acronyms like STFU, GTFO, RTFA, IDC, WTH, WTF etc. Not my intent. I sometimes use TFA as a reference to the linked article. I'll reconsider next time.