On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Keith Marshall wrote: > Even if this were true, it makes no sense in geometric terms, to refer > to the `left corner' of an object. What, exactly, should that be > interpreted to mean? > > In your example, object `A' is a circle; it doesn't have *any* corners!
Thanks for your input. I apologize for my confusing terminology. I realize of course that, geometrically speaking, circles have no corners. I have been using the term "corner" in the way that all of the pic grammars I've looked at use it. In that sense, all objects have multiple corners. > additionally, as Ted has already stated, the correct > syntax is `A.left', or `at left of A', (strictly, this should probably > be `at .left of A'), but not `A left'. Your example can be written, > much more intelligibly, as > > .PS > A: circle "A" > B: circle "B" at A.left > .PE > > or as > > .PS > A: circle "A" > B: circle "B" at left of A > .PE > > Why do we need to accept the more confusing form of expression? I've been asking two questions, which I had hoped had the same answer. In my last email, I was focused mostly on what the grammar author originally intended. This is interesting to me because I wish to determine if I've found a real-world example of how canonical LR(1) would help in the development of a grammar. I believe I've found significant evidence in gpic's source comments that canonical LR(1) would help achieve what the author intended. My other question is what the current developers, community, and any pic specifications say is the desired pic behavior. It seems they are opposed to this alternative use of "left" and "right".
