[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(slight correction) Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:54:25 +0800
(Sorry, the rules I sent had a lot of errors, so I am sending them again. I
apologise for not being a robot.)
Off the top of my head, grammars like
( a, (a |b)*, c, (a, b)+, b )+
are pretty hard to model completely. One can easily infer the rules
- there can only be a, b, c
test="count(*) = count(a)+count(b)+count(c)"
inferred by counting elements
- there must be at least 1 c, at least 2 b, and at least 2 a
test="c" test="count(b) > 1" test="count(a) >1"
inferred by counting required elements
- it must start with a and end with a b
inferred by looking at the start start and tracing from the end state
- c must be followed by a
test="count(c[next-sibling::a]) = count(c)"
inferred by making lists of allowed following elements (is this
- there must be a sequence of cab and abb
inferred by tracing required sequences.