LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  March 1997

LATEX-L March 1997

Subject:

Re: Shortref mechanism

From:

"Randolph J. Herber" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:32:45 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (216 lines)

The following header lines retained to affect attribution:
|Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 11:01:59 +0100
|From: [log in to unmask] (Hans Aberg)
|Subject: Re: Shortref mechanism
|To: LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
|Cc: "Randolph J. Herber" <[log in to unmask]>

|"Randolph J. Herber" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

|>|>|> Please. would you use the proper nomenclature?

|>|>|> The pairing from your improper nomenclature to what I believe
|>|>|> is the pertinent nomenclature for what you are attempting to
|>|>|> discuss is:

|>|>|> deterministic ==> context free
|>|>|> non-deterministic ==> context sensitive

|>| I get a lot of (very long) letters of this kind, demanding that I should
|>|use this or other terminology.

|> Ipse dixit.

        [Latin, ``he said it himself.'']

|>| I have an old book, "Compilers", by Robin Hunter, that on page 40 defines
|>|the notions "nondetermistic/deterministic parser" as whether of one can go
|>|back on the decision in the parsing process, or not. This is what I mean.

        [bibliography deleted]

|>| On page 231, a "context sensitive parser" is described as a method to
|>|handle a attribute grammars, and the like. This is not what I have in mind.

|> This refers to a parser. I had been refering to context free
|> languages and grammars. ``Attribute grammars'' are concerned
|> with semantics. At the level of semantics all compiler and
|> interpreters which process meaning, which attribute grammers
|> must, must be context sensitive.

|>| Otherwise, I do not understand how this or other terminology can solve
|>|the problems discussed here.

|> It _may_ help solve problems in communication.

| Perhaps the terminology varies.

        Yes, perhaps, the terminology varies. I indicated that some
        did use ``non-deterministic'' to refer to a parser take used
        a stack machine architecture.

| (The book by Aho et al does not have this terminology in their index.

        The Aho books, there are two in the list, both used either or
        both ``context free grammar'' or ``context sensitive grammar.''

        To be fair to you if I found a reference to ``deterministic''
        or ``non-deterministic'' whether the referent were a grammar, a
        language or an automaton, then I added a note at the bottom
        of the bibliography.

        I would say that there is sufficient evidence to say that a
        few of the authors used the words ``deterministic'' or
        ``non-deterministic'' in a manner that would support your
        meaning of a parser that back-tracks or has a stack-archtecture.

        The majority of the books did not so use those words; at least
        not in the indices.

|Is this long list really a reference list, or just a compiling of a long list
|of books in an attempt to impress?)

        I own and have read through those books. When I sent that message,
        it was just after midnight. My regular employment is daytime. I
        sent the message from home while logged into a machine at work. I
        have used those books over approximately the last three decades to
        better understand the compilation process and how to write compilers.
        I have used them to write several small compilers at work. In that
        sense the list is a reference list. In the sense of attempting to
        demonstrate that the usual terminology in the computer computer
        field is ``context free'' or ``context sensitive,'' one might say
        that the list is also intended to impress.

        Another reason for citing a large number of books was to show
        that the terminology has not changed sigificantly in the
        approximately last three decades.

| Otherwise, it is certainly not appropriate that some like Mr. Randolph J.
|Herber acting terminology police, telling people to use whatever
|terminology he decides is correct. This is common theme in his letters,
|telling others what to do: He decides what problems Frank Mittelbach has --
|I thought this was something Frank Mittelbach should decide. I say that
|this is the terminology I use, and this is from this or that book, and Mr.
|Randolph J. Herber says, without looking into the book, that this is not
|what it says, it says what he makes it up to say.
| And so on...

I asked you to use the usual, proper terminology.

I will accept ``I say that this is the terminology I use'' as your
answer. I will try to remember what meaning you have assigned to
this terminology. I do know how successful I will be.

As an aside, this reminds me of Lewis Carroll's Thrugh the Looking Glass:

  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means
  just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
  "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
  different things."
  "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Whom else, besides you, in this mailing list did I ask to do something,
let alone, demand to do something? I may have forgotten or overlooked
someone or something.

What letters, other than this sequence of terminology, are you refering
to? As far as I can determine my only other posting in this mailing list
was, in its entirely, less my signature block is:

"
Re: milliard

It is used in Russian.
"


Quoting myself from my just previous message in this sequence:

"
|>|> Please. would you use the proper nomenclature?

                ...

        Your reference, Robin Hunter, probably used the phrase
                                      ^^^^^^^^ [emphasis added]
        ``deterministic grammar'' in the sense of being unambiguous.
        This is separate from whether the grammar is context sensitive.
        It is possible for a context sensitive grammar to be ambiguous.
"

I clearly labeled my expression as being a conjecture. I did not claim
to have read your reference. The three sources that I had which used
the phrase ``deterministic grammar'' did use that phrase in the sense
of ``unambiguous grammar.'' I do not feel that it is unreasonable for
me to conjecture that your reference may have also so used the phrase.

Since it is a conjecture, it is easily refuted by quoting enough context
to enable us to see that I erred in my conjecture. You would not have
been out of place simply to say how your reference did use that phrase.

Quoting myself from a previous message in this sequence:

"
        I believe that Frank Mittelbach's point and position (not
        ``problem,'' as you say) is that changing TeX from a context
        free to a context sensitive syntax (grammar, if you wish)
        is too large of a change to be considered.
"

        I stated what I believed Frank Mittelbach's position to be.
        Neither he nor you contradicted my belief (conjecture, if
        you please). I would be quite happy for him to correct
        any errors in this conjecture about his point or position.

Quoting you and then myself of another previous message in this sequence:

"
| But this does not solve Frank Mittelbach's problem, as he pointed out.

        Unless you consider Frank Mittelbach's lack of interest in
        redesigning or reimplementing or a lack of resources to redesign
        and reimplement TeX's syntax processing as ``Frank Mittelbach's
        problem,'' Frank Mittelbach does not have a problem here. I do
        not have a problem here; computer languages are a major portion
        of my education and work.
"

You are the one who refered to ``Frank Mittelbach's problem''.

Frank Mittelbach himself stated a lack of interest in redesigning or
reimplementing or a lack of resources to redesign and reimplement
TeX's syntax processing. I conjectured that you may have considered
Frank's statement as being ``Frank Mittelbach's problem.''

What do you consider ``Frank Mittelbach's problem'' to be?

  If Mr. Randolph J. Herber is so good at these things, why does he not sit
|down and knock out some parsers written in TeX, so one can see what he can
|do?

1. I may be good at programming generally and I may have had considerably
   more experience writing compilers than most people. But, neither
   statement means that I am good at writing in the TeX computer language.

   Nor does it mean that I know everything about programming in general
   nor about compiler writing specifically. I do not believe that any
   one can make that claim.

   I do feel that I have had sufficient education and experience to
   have an expert's knowledge of the terminology of mathematical
   automata theory and of computer language parsing.

2. In fact, I deny that I am good at writing in the TeX computer language
   at the level level of implementing new packages and facilities.

3. Please reduce my ignorance, what, including parsers, have you
   contributed to LaTeX or this mailing list?

| Hans Aberg

Randolph J. Herber, [log in to unmask], +1 630 840 2966,
CD/OSS/CDF CDF-PK-149O Mail Stop 234
Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60190-0500.
(Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.)
(Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.)
N 41 50 26.3 W 88 14 54.4 and altitude 700' approximately, WGS84 datum.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager