On Monday 05 December 2005 17:56, John Haxby wrote:
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> >I looked into this a year ago... most scripting languages have an
> >emphasis on script execution speed, not script parsing speed (which is
> >what we would need). The scripting languages I tried were horribly
> >slow at parsing a small script. The only one that could parse at a
> >reasonable speed was rhino (javascript) in interp mode.
> >
> >
> I've always found the lisp syntax very easy to parse. In this case,
> it's just prefix with the nam of he operator being first in the list, eg
> (and "eggs" "oranges"). There are wrinkles for named and optional
> parameters, but the basic syntax is a doddle.
Lisp syntax is good at nesting, and it also does properties and roles:
((phrase 5) "eggs" "oranges")
(boolean (must "eggs") (mustnot "oranges"))
I like the simplicity. Now the earlier example:
(boosting
(match
((moreLikeThis (percent "0.25") (docId "44"))
(compareField "contents")
(compareField "title")
)
)
((downgrade (demote "0.5"))
((simple "contents")
(or "ice hockey" puck rink)
)
)
)
The deep nesting is tricky with only one kind of
partentheses/brackets. Perhaps python like is better. Python
has nesting by indentation introduced by a colon at the end
of the previous line.
To be read with a fixed width font:
boosting:
match:
moreLikeThis(percent="0.25", docId="44"):
compareField("contents")
compareField("title")
downgrade(demote="0.5"):
simple("contents"):
or:
"ice hockey"
puck
rink
Quite readable, but not so easy to parse.
(One could even do away with the colons.)
Regards,
Paul Elschot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
