Am 17.03.2012 13:03, schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Joachim Durchholz<j...@durchholz.org> wrote:
However, I would not stick with the first syntax that gives a match. It's
entirely possible that two different syntaxes give a valid parse.
So: try all syntaxes. Check if they give the same abstract syntax (logical
structure, if you will). If they give different interpretations, alert the
user to the fact and ask which interpretation is what he meant.
I think it might be possible to merge the two approaches and, if more
than one grammar gives match, show one valid parse and allow the user
to see the others.
Sounds good.
> In this case we might collect the statistics to
see which of the grammars is usually chosen in ambiguous situations so
that we will be able to alter the defaults correspondingly.
How about letting the user specify the syntax, the default option being
"auto-detect"?
I'm a bit sceptical about trying to get correlations out of user input.
Repeating myself: User input is multi-channel high-noise input,
extracting useful signals from that is hard.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
