2009/4/16 Michael Mossey :
> I don't think I would create a parser language that includes every variant,
> but instead the field names would be tokens that could be passed to another
> routine.
Right.
> The variants could be generated ahead of time. I would limit the
> number of variants to somet
Robin Green wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:31:50 -0700
Michael Mossey wrote:
I was thinking that it might be useful to have a Google-like "do you
mean this?" feature. If the field name is //customer=, then the
parser might recognize a huge list of variants
like //ustomer=, //customor=, etc...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:31:50 -0700
Michael Mossey wrote:
> I was thinking that it might be useful to have a Google-like "do you
> mean this?" feature. If the field name is //customer=, then the
> parser might recognize a huge list of variants
> like //ustomer=, //customor=, etc...
You could redu
2009/4/16 Michael Mossey :
> I was thinking that it might be useful to have a Google-like "do you mean
> this?" feature. If the field name is //customer=, then the parser might
> recognize a huge list of variants like //ustomer=, //customor=, etc... that
> is, recognize them well enough to continue
I'm thinking of writing a parser to load files that my customers have created. I'm a
software requirements engineer; the data consists of the customers' thoughts in
response to the latest release of the requirements doc. In fact, the files will
probably be copies of the requirements doc itself,
