12,080
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Cactus Language (view source)
Revision as of 18:24, 6 January 2009
, 18:24, 6 January 2009→Grammar 4: markup
There does not appear to be anything radically wrong with trying this approach to types. It is reasonable and consistent in its underlying principle, and it provides a rational and a homogeneous strategy toward all parts of speech, but it does require an extra amount of conceptual overhead, in that every non-trivial type has to be split into two parts and comprehended in two stages. Consequently, in view of the largely practical difficulties of making the requisite distinctions for every intermediate symbol, it is a common convention, whenever possible, to restrict intermediate types to covering exclusively non-empty strings.
There does not appear to be anything radically wrong with trying this approach to types. It is reasonable and consistent in its underlying principle, and it provides a rational and a homogeneous strategy toward all parts of speech, but it does require an extra amount of conceptual overhead, in that every non-trivial type has to be split into two parts and comprehended in two stages. Consequently, in view of the largely practical difficulties of making the requisite distinctions for every intermediate symbol, it is a common convention, whenever possible, to restrict intermediate types to covering exclusively non-empty strings.
For the sake of future reference, it is convenient to refer to this restriction on intermediate symbols as the ''intermediate significance'' constraint. It can be stated in a compact form as a condition on the relations between non-terminal symbols <math>q \in \{ \, ^{\backprime\backprime} S ^{\prime\prime} \, \} \cup \mathfrak{Q}</math> and sentential forms <math>W \in \{ \, ^{\backprime\backprime} S ^{\prime\prime} \, \} \cup (\mathfrak{Q} \cup \mathfrak{A})^*.</math>
<pre>
<pre>
| Condition On Intermediate Significance
| Condition On Intermediate Significance
|
|