On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:56:41AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/14/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@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