By the way, at least as I currently understand the semantics, "normal"
doesn't really fit here. There's no 3rd alternative, and I really do
not want to characterize either one as "normal".
It's just that in the name of backward compatibility "weak" is the
default and currently I think that may be best. But things could turn
out like in the LTM/LATM situation, where LATM started out meaureably
slower, but it had an adoption curve that looked like a jailbreak, and I
eventually found a way to make LATM the faster of the two (if probably
not measureably).
So calling something "normal" is more commitment than I want to make.
-- jeffrey
On 05/12/2014 08:13 PM, Deyan Ginev wrote:
Hi Christopher,
I like Jeffrey's point that Marpa is so powerful it allows you to use
the most natural syntax / phrasing in the SLIF.
The correct English for overriding a priority is indeed "override
priority", and it certainly feels intuitive to me. "priority override"
could easily be read as prioritizing an override, whatever that may mean.
If one wanted to enact an intuition of making priority parametric, I
would intuitively understand a syntax that is more suggestive, e.g.
priority<weak>
priority<normal>
priority<override>
or some more Perl-near syntax, such as
prirority => weak
priority => override(strong)
Of course, that's entirely a personal preference.
Greetings,
Deyan
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Christopher Layne
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On May 12, 2014, at 1853 PT, Jeffrey Kegler
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:marpa-parser%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
