This is getting off course, but I will try to clarify. Here are the
current parsing rules:
EDGE VERB NOUN ANY 0 Monad
EDGE+AVN VERB VERB NOUN 1 Monad
EDGE+AVN NOUN VERB NOUN 2 Dyad
EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN ADV ANY 3 Adverb
EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN CONJ VERB+NOUN 4 Conj
EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN VERB VERB 5 Fork
EDGE CAVN CAVN ANY 6 Bident
NAME+NOUN ASGN CAVN ANY 7 Is
LPAR CAVN RPAR ANY 8 Paren
As I have been saying, there is no additional parsing that takes place
for adverb trains, all that happens is that the rule or "action" in the
fourth row, called "3 Adverb", is applied. That is, the adverb (created
from a train) is applied to it's argument and the result returned.
However, I don't see a precise definition anywhere of what an adverb
train does, in the sense that there is a precise definition of what the
adverb / does (I have not scoured the dictionary for it though, so
correct me if I am wrong.) SO, if you were to re-specify somehow the
behavior of adverb trains as it applies to parsing (I don't see a rule
in that table) you could avoid speaking about what happens in the
"action" and explicitly state what happens in the parse table thus
avoiding the current implementations behavior of trying to "apply an
adverb to an adverb".
One way to do it perhaps is by stating that an adverb train applies its
leading adverb to its argument and places the result back in the queue
in place of the argument while removing the leading adverb from the
train and continues parsing. I think that would result in the behavior
that is being proposed.
Maybe some other description of the behavior makes it more explicitly
evident that a syntax error should follow.
But all in all, that description eludes me.
On 03/15/2016 05:01 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
I am trying to make sense of this proposal:
change the parsing rules so that the application of adverb trains
are part of parsing and not built in to action "3 Adverb".
What does this even mean?
The "3 Adverb" action is a parsing action.
So it's sort of like you are saying "the application of adverbs should
not be a part of parsing but should instead be a part of parsing".
But that doesn't make any sense to me.
So, I guess maybe what you are proposing is to get rid of the parser
described by http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm and
replace it with an entirely different parser which works almost
exactly the same except that it does something different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
