Mercurial > pylearn
changeset 1224:f68b857eb11b
reply to comments on architecture document
| author | Ian Goodfellow |
|---|---|
| date | Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:44:14 -0400 |
| parents | 621e03253f0c |
| children | dbac4bd107d8 |
| files | doc/v2_planning/arch_src/plugin_JB_comments_IG.txt |
| diffstat | 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/doc/v2_planning/arch_src/plugin_JB_comments_IG.txt Wed Sep 22 15:08:39 2010 -0400 +++ b/doc/v2_planning/arch_src/plugin_JB_comments_IG.txt Wed Sep 22 15:44:14 2010 -0400 @@ -96,3 +96,17 @@ Perhaps I don't understand your first example - where do the definitions of A and B come from? Must they be in the same file higher up or something? In what language will they be defined? + + +IG replies: + + Doesn't your proposal refer to what is being created as an "imperative +language"? + A, B, etc. are just placeholders for whatever kind of statement you want to +fill in-- CALL, FILTER, etc. What I wrote wasn't meant to be a real program, +just an example of how tree-structured programs get mapped into text. + The main reason to bring up the issue of a scripting language for assembling +these constructors is we need to make sure that the set of optional arguments +to each constructors is such that the scripting language built on top of them +is LL(1). Fortunately, that is not very hard. When we start converging on the +final interface I can do the check myself.