On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 15:30, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:10:42PM -0600, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> | On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 14:51, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> | > Comments arn't actually attached to nodes. This would cause
> | > all sort of problems and was hashed out about a year ago.
> | > See the archives. It's a brutal decision and we don't have
> | > a week to review it. So can we let it rest?
> Err, um, I didn't intend to go off list... sorry.
> | okay, if there'e no way to get comments or indentation except by parsing
> | the syntax that's fine, i'll drop. but what about directives? they have
> | a bit more importance don't you think? so at what level can i load those
> | below the syntatical one?
> Err. I think my post was mis-leading. Comments, Indentation, and other
> syntax stuff is in the syntax model (the one that reflects t
> but to answer your question; comments, indentation, directives, etc
> all belong in the syntax model and the parser is *welcome* to
> provide this info (I think libyaml provides it if asked for)
i see so the syntax model is a little more then what i've been taking it
to be? just a hunk of text? that's actually the 0th pre-syntax model as
mentioned by mike. is that right? okay if that's the case then that aprt
is already like i want. my spilt was trying to fix something i didn't
know was already there b/c the 0th level was never clearly contrasted
against the 1st (syntax).
> | when you say three will do i get the feeling that no logical model has
> | made it into you relm of possibilities?
> Everything is in the realm of possibilities; I just don't
> think that a stack of models can probably be improved upon.
> I'm not sure... really. Model stuff is _hard_ and best done
> as a collaboration, cuz I know I'm too stupid to see the
> whole picture.
well mine isn't all that differnt from what is there already, and its
not completly a stack. first off the functonal model is a subclass of
the logical one. and if you think about it one might be able to concieve
it as a russian "onion" doll, one layer in inside another inside
another. i'll think on it some more though.
> Anyway, to answer the most immediate concern, I don't think
> that a tall hierarchy will do, I think it is probably more
> like a cube...
> +---------+ (functional,graph,typed)
> / | |
> / | |
> + | |
> | +---------+ (functional,tree,typed)
> | / /
> | / /
> |/ /
> +---------+ (functional,tree,untyped)
> Only that functional,untyped is distinctly _not_
> a possibility... so a cube is out. ;( Clark
okay lets review each of these terms cause i want to know exactly what
you mean by them. for instance graph is a real funny one, i've seen that
used so freely i don't even know if has a meaning anymore ;) the
functional, are we on the same page there, the mathmatical defintion
--doamin/range, etc. then typed vs. untyped, your talking about a
semantic level like 0xFF = 255, distinguished from a format case like
10,000 = 10000 limited to regex. i assume tree is the the syntax
"flattened" into a hierarchical sequence (of events). and finally
paired, well i'm thinking alias/anchor, that one escapes me.
so i take it there's:
pairing vs. functional
tree vs. graph
untyped vs. typed
yes, indeed i really need to uinderstand your terminology better. mine
is rather formally based on mathamatics and literal websters usage. not
so much academic c.s. terminolgy b/c i've taught myself most everyhting
i know. please clearify tree vs graph and paring vs. functional.
tom sawyer, aka transami