On May 12, 2014, at 1853 PT, Jeffrey Kegler <[email protected]> wrote:
> So call the tie-breaking priority scheme (the current one), "weak priority". > And call the other, which never accepts a lower priority token over a higher > one, regardless of the length, "strong priority". > > My question to the list is, given that I've already used the priority adverb > to mean "weak priority", what nomenclature should I use? My first > inclination is to use the names I am using in this post. That is, >> :lexeme ~ <say keyword> priority => 1 > continues to mean "weak" priority, and so is a synonym for >> :lexeme ~ <say keyword> weak priority => 1 > but >> :lexeme ~ <say keyword> strong priority => 1 > now means "strong priority". Within programming, I've always subscribed to <noun|subject|thing>_<verb|adjective> etc. I'd personally go with: priority weak | priority priority normal prioriry strong Alternatively, as Ron said, but slightly different: priority priority override All are sub-types of priorities, and priority (nothing) maps to priority weak. priority normal is there as some kind of placeholder, but otherwise presently unused. -cl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
