> The same thing can be said about code.
The forums are not a compiler, you dope.
> The same thing can be said about code.
The forums are not a compiler, you dope.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
I think it would engage the senses more fully. In 1900 one could have said that adding audio to motion pictures would just be redundant and an annoyance. Today motion pictures with audio is the standard. I think most would agree with me that motion pictures are much better as a result.Originally Posted by Queatrix
It makes reading code more pleasant. I think it would it would do the same for English. If you had access to a dictionary data base, it could be coded in a matter of hours.
I wasn't suggesting this for use on the forums.
This is off topic.you dope.
My mistake then. It seems I wasn't the only person making that assumption, though.
If you're going to use it as a tool to teach ESL or something like that I can see a use for it, but for general use anywhere else it'd be very grating.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Nice hand-waving there. It could not be "coded in a couple of hours." Once again, "He eats shoots and leaves." Is shoots a verb or a noun? How the hell is a dictionary going to help?
Even in C there would be problems. The classic example is the hack between the parser and the lexer where an identifier is retyped to be a typename by a typedef. The compiler itself is unable to determine on a merely syntactic level whether a particular symbol is an identifier or a typename. Therefore some weird back-channels between the parser and the lexer are required.
Basically, you don't understand anything about languages.
that doesn't make sense. Art imitates life in most cases, audio to motion picture was portraying film the way plays, operas, ballet and others have been displaying stories hundreds of years before motion picture. Audio is a part of life and that needed to be reflected if motion picture was going to be worth a damn 100 years later. What does spell checking imitate? The annoying guy who interrupts your story so that he can say, "It's 'Exacerbate' not 'eggsasibate'" before I punch him in the face.
It is an interesting idea, actually. The implementation must be very robust, or else the result will only be confusing.
It might actually improve the speed of reading, but it would probably take a while before the brain got used to take advantage of the extra information.
EDIT: I agree that implementing it here would be a horrible idea, but the concept itself is interesting.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
What extra information?
Umm, the colors and the boldness of the words.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
Note that this thread was from May 16, 2 weeks ago, and was last replied on that same day before these new ones. I've already mentioned my thoughts on this - worthy only when proofreading a story or the like, but useless otherwise.
High elevation is the best elevation. The higher, the better the view!
My computer: XP Pro SP3, 3.4 GHz i7-2600K CPU (OC'd to 4 GHz), 4 GB DDR3 RAM, X-Fi Platinum sound, GeForce 460, 1920x1440 resolution, 1250 GB HDD space, Visual C++ 2008 Express
Which is extra information how? I think you don't understand what "information" is.Umm, the colors and the boldness of the words.
If the sentence can be highlighted using only the information available within the sentence, then BY DEFINITION the highlighting adds NO NEW information.
It's not highlighting based on only the info in the sentence, though. It's going to have to be cross referenced against an extensive dictionary. You can't just look at a string of words and determine the parts of speech without knowing things about grammar and how specific words act. That's the extra information.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
I don't know why I am answering you at all...
Yes, it is extra information. A simpler example is source code. Nothing in the source code defines which words are keywords and which words aren't. The syntax highligher uses external information from a dictionary and adds new information to the source code from this dictionary by making certain words bold. I hope you understand now.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
The LANGUAGE defines it. Strings of lexemes do not stand on their own, but are only meaningful with respect to a grammar. Just because the first line of a C program isn't "using language c;" doesn't mean this information is not available.
I understand that you obviously have no knowledge of either information theory or linguistic theory, if that's what you mean.I hope you understand now.
