Laurent PETIT wrote:
> For 2., you could even consider, rather than manually doing the
> conversion, write (in clojure of course, with the help of the xml
> parsing tools already available) a AIML to clojure-AIML converter :-)
Most of the work will be about figuring out how to map the functional
2009/5/7 dhs827 :
>
> Thanks, everybody. The buzz at Hacker News is that the Clojure
> community is awesome, and the buzz is right.
>
> Now, to me, it follows from the advice you gave that I should do two
> projects:
>
> 1. Learn Clojure by implementing (some of) AIML (about half of the
> language
Thanks, everybody. The buzz at Hacker News is that the Clojure
community is awesome, and the buzz is right.
Now, to me, it follows from the advice you gave that I should do two
projects:
1. Learn Clojure by implementing (some of) AIML (about half of the
language is of no interest to me)
2. Imple
On May 6, 4:39 am, dhs827 wrote:
> I realize now that there is no quick fix, and I'll have to learn a
> lot to do this properly. But are there already enough resources so
> that I can learn how to do it in Clojure? For example, would there be
> enough about string processing in "Programming Cl
Daniel Lyons wrote:
> I hope I misunderstood the phrase "explicit non-matches", because I
> believe that problem is intractable, or at least leads to
> unpleasantries like negation of the expression "foo" being "[^f]|[^f]
> [^o]|[^f][^o][^o]|f[^o]|fo[^o]|f$|fo$|^$", which I'm not even sure
On May 6, 2009, at 1:57 AM, dhs827 wrote:
> 2. Would it be better (or even possible) to learn about matching and
> string processing in general, independent of the programming language?
>
> I know about regex, but that's not enough: I need to learn about
> "matching in context", where "context" m
Adrian Cuthbertson wrote:
> There are two excellent clojure
> tutorials on monads which would be good starting points;
Thanks, I bet that'll be useful, too. I already have a rough
understanding of what monads do, so having them presented in the
context of Clojure may help me.
Dirk
--~--~---
Luke VanderHart wrote:
> It actually sounds very like the classic exercise of building a logic-
> based language similar to Prolog in Scheme or Lisp, only with an AI/
> pattern matching functionality instead of a logic resolution engine.
Exactly - I'm doing much of the logic directly in the patt
>2. Would it be better (or even possible) to learn about matching and
>string processing in general, independent of the programming language?
Hi Dirk, it's a pretty advanced topic and quite difficult to get one's
head around (at least for me), but monads (both clojure and in
general) may be of in
Thanks for your suggestion, Stuart, and yes, that's one obvious chice:
the AIML interpreter in question - Program D - is written in Java, so
why not just learn enough Java to fix the stack, and be done? In fact,
this was my first consideration.
However, that would be myopic. The reason I have thi
Hi Dirk, welcome to Clojure!
I don't know much about Scala, but I know that Lisp-like languages
have long been popular for this sort of language manipulation, so
Clojure may be a good one to look at.
Some caveats: Clojure does not have a direct equivalent to the pattern/
template style of AIML.
First of all, this is a very interesting question. I definitely wish I
had more time to think about it and maybe put together some code -
unfortunately I don't.
Clojure does sound like it would be good for this kind of processing.
This is an ideal example of where it would be incredibly powerful
Hi,
my name is Dirk Scheuring, I'm a writer based in Cologne, Germany, and
I want to write something about AI that can only be expressed by using
AI technology and technique. You could say that what I aim for is a
chatbot, but it's a bot that works quiet different from the norm; at
it's core, the
13 matches
Mail list logo
