[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: nested backquotes
- From: gls@Think.COM
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 88 13:00:23 EST
- Cc: gls@Think.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Don Cohen's message of Mon, 14 Nov 88 15:29:34 PST <8811142330.AA12027@vaxa.isi.edu>
Posted-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 15:29:34 PST
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 15:29:34 PST
From: Don Cohen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Now there's a good point. What does that mean anyhow?
Please try to justify your answer.
Look, I've already provided a model. You're trying to produce a new
model. The task is to prove that they are equivalent; in other words,
that for any backquoted expression the two models provide equivalent
interpretations. (Alternatively, where the two models produce
inequivalent results, you need to argue that the first model is bogus.
That would be a really interesting result!)
Now, for some backquoted expressions your model produces intermediate
results in which COMMA has more than one argument form. So you need
either to provide an interpretation in your model for such intermediate
results (i.e., new productions), or to argue that backquoted expressions
that produce such intermediate results are not meaningful.