[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> I don't believe I'd find the parts of foo to have any commonality, much
> less "common"-ness. I guess an enumeration or a regex with lots of OR in
> it for the content could define some, but I prefer commonality to be a
> pattern that emerges from the information.
I didn't think you would. But how about this perfectly sensible and useful
type (which I give only in part):
{14, 18, 23, 28, 34, "Times Square"} : stations-on-the-#1-subway-line
These have little lexical commonality, but the underlying semantics is
very sensible (if a tad application-specific).
> Regular expressions are pretty good at describing a wide variety of lexical
> commonalities.
But they also work for things that have almost no visible commonality at
all, so your argument proves too much!
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
