>Well, there seems to be one thing that we agree upon. It won't take a complex parser to handle my exchange format. I sure was luck in my design, huh?
Not really. It's a lot more complicated than my parser, because you have to recognize both the keywords and the syntax they imply, rather than just the syntax in the first place. I'm not at all sure how I would handle embedding several layouts and solutions inside the outer begin/end keywords, I just know that's NOT something I would want to impose on a standard.
>You've use the term "human" numerous times. I guess it never occurred to you that someone might want a FreeCell solution in an exchange format where they can pump it into a program to analyze the solution at various points -- without having to write a mind_reader() routine for your "(context-free) layouts that are terse and visually clear to a human".
Of course it occurred to me. I use a very similar syntax to communicate with FFA and this parser and layout/solution generator has been working for five years. I've been there with both types of syntax, more than once. I studied "human factors" in graduate school and wrote my masters thesis on artificial languages. I could go on, but this does seem like a dialog more fitting your definition than mine, so I'll just leave it here.
-Gary
Received on Tue Dec 18 2012 - 06:43:48 IST