So I was in a heated debate with a good friend about Ometa. He pointed out,
inadvertently, that matters of syntax and grammar are only the easy part of the
problem.
Ometa, I think, is the most elegant language we've seen for binding
syntactic/grammatical constructs to semantics implemented in
On Nov 22, 2010, at 08:40 , Casey Ransberger wrote:
matters of syntax and grammar are only the easy part of the problem.
How many hoops do we want to jump through in order to express our semantics?
I imagine I'm not the only person thinking about this.
I will be talking about exactly this
Man... I *wish* I could meet you, let alone meet you in Kyoto!
J
On 22/11/2010, at 12:36 PM, Ian Piumarta wrote:
On Nov 22, 2010, at 08:40 , Casey Ransberger wrote:
matters of syntax and grammar are only the easy part of the problem.
How many hoops do we want to jump through in order to
