Replied inline... On Friday, 20 January 2017 16:45:43 UTC+1, Kevin Donnelly wrote: > > I have two rules: > substitute (tagX LOC) (tagX LOC tagY) (tagX LOC); > substitute (tagX TEMP) (tagX TEMP tagY) (tagX TEMP); > > Is there any way of conflating these in one rule? > > I wondered about creating a set: > CLASSTAGS = LOC TEMP; > and using that in the rules, but I can't see that this would work, because > the substitute locations and the thing being substituted both contain > actual tags as well as what would be a set. > > Is the assumption that this can't be done correct? >
The order could be what sinks it, but maybe... CLASSTAGS = LOC TEMP ; substitute (tagX) + $$CLASSTAGS (tagX) + $$CLASSTAGS + (tagY) (tagX) + $$CLASSTAGS ; -- Tino Didriksen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Constraint Grammar" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/constraint-grammar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
