[REBOL] Re: relative expressions
From: brett:codeconscious at: 3-Apr-2003 17:41
> 1) Combining dialects isn't something I see as simpy a UNION of two or
> more, but what we do is build up phrases, idioms, and dialect
> "nesting".
I agree, and that building up is real work of real value that is leveraged
by people but much less easily in programs.
> E.g. maybe there's a dialect for medical terminology. Now,
> you have messages from people that contain "my doctor said I have..."
> or "my doctor told me..." which could be used like a switch to jump
> INTO another dialect (like INTO being used with sub-blocks). In this
> case, you jump from your main messaging dialect to the medical
> dialect; maybe even try a list of alternate dialects.
Yes establishing a useful context for the data is critical. If we were to
parse this information in REBOL we would possibly need a system that could
switch in
dialect interpreters as required. Of course then we need to know
*what* to switch in.
Yes, perhaps our alternative dialects select themselves via relevance
(validation) process.
> Where messages go, and how they are used, will also vary widely. There
> will likely be cases where a message header will contain metadata that
> will help tell processors what to do, or what can be done,
> with them. Think how things like JINI and WSDL are used as an example.
I'm not really familiar with either of those two technologies, though I
suspect wsdl is a resource discovery system. A message header is just data
for a "higher up" context so I see the processing of metadata as the same
issue just moved 1 level. E.g in your description above "my doctor said I
have" is metadata for whatever followed but is data at the same level as
whatever preceeded that phrase. Such thoughts can lead quickly to confusion
as I try to refocus attention on the levels of meaning. :^)
> 2) The dialect/action combination is a many to many relationship.
> We may want to replace the actions behind a dialect, but we may *also*
> want to put a different dialect over basically the same set of
> actions, or at least achieve the same end result (e.g. parse the data
> for values, build up a record, put it in a DB).
I can certainly understand replacing the actions behind a dialect, but if we
were to put a different dialect over the same set of actions would it be
better to call the set of actions a library or module or api?
> 3) If you've looked at the "programming by example" paradigm, imagine
> designing dialects by using example text.
Yes I've tried. Unfortunately the amazing number of unlimited possibilities
is somewhat of a block. I found, for me, it was more practical to reflect on
VID then try things out. Then reflect on VID again and my attempt and try
more things out. But now I'd rather pick up a template to fill in - but no
one seems to have one.
> PARSE itself is amazing, but imagine what we can build on top of it!
I am, thats the problem, my imagination far exceeds my ability and my
current reality!
Regards,
Brett.
