> It's not really equivalent, natural language has ambiguities and subtleties > that computer languages, especially functional languages, intentionally > don't have. By their nature, computer languages can be turned into parse > trees unambiguously and then those trees can be manipulated.
But in some ways that makes things easier - i.e. you don't expect to be able to summarise a conversation/paper/book in a way that completely recreates it - some ambiguity is unavoidable. > But coincidentally I work in a Natural Language Processing group, and one of > the things we do is create exactly the kind of concise summaries you > describe. =) Well good luck! And I'll be interested to see anything you come up with. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
