On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:56:41AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/14/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com>
wrote:
Right here, Steve, you're hitting on the
underlying problem with this
project: some behavior of the current parser is defined and
intentional, and some of it is probably an accident of the
implementation.
Distinguishing these is probably a) important and b) impossible.
Well, of course. The initial brief was to document the current behaviour of
the parser precisely. I don't think that's either possible or desirable.
What's far more useful is to document the current behaviour over a useful,
used subset.
Apparently not; see Brion's reply in the Practicum thread.
I guess ultimately if the correctness of the parser is
only going to be
judged by the regression tests and the Wikipedia
corpus, then a happy medium should be findable.
Yeah; good luck with that.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274