Dr. Dobb's Python-URL! - weekly Python news and links (Dec 2)

[Christopher Subich]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E



"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."

Buffalo from the city of Buffalo, which are intimidated by buffalo
from Buffalo, also intimidate buffalo from Buffalo.

And to do a small simplification on it, to illustrate just how painful
that sentence really is, the semantically equivalent version:

N = buffalo from Buffalo

(N [that] N buffalo) buffalo N.

The dropping of the [that] is legal, if sometimes ambiguous, in English.

I didn't say it was *good* English, but it is *legal* English.

Which is why natural language programming's never going to take off.

 

[Christopher Subich]

Er... no, I can't parse that. I suffered a Too Much Recursion error about
the third Badger (I only have a limited runtime stack).

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

And now back to your regularly scheduled newsgroup, already in progress.

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E



Buffalo from the city of Buffalo, which are intimidated by buffalo
from Buffalo, also intimidate buffalo from Buffalo.

Did you mean: Bagder from the city of Badger, who is pestered by
a badger from Badger, also pesters badger from Badger. Mushroom
expands rapidly!

(Argh! Snake!)

</F>

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Er... no, I can't parse that. I suffered a Too Much Recursion error about
the third Badger (I only have a limited runtime stack).

I asked my missus about this one, she being much better at English grammar
than I am, and she thinks the badger/mushroom sentence is a wind-up. Is
she right?

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/ (make sure your speakers are on)

</F>

 

[Rocco Moretti]

The punctuation is important.

Reminds me of this old classic:

Insert punctuation & capitalization to make the following a correct and
coherent (if not a little tourtured).

fred where guido had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the reader

 

[skip]

Steven> I'm always amazed and perplexed at how hot-shot programmers who
Steven> would never forget a colon or a brace can be so slap-dash about
Steven> using proper punctuation and grammar in English.

That's because there's no equivalent to a compiler or interpreter preventing
them from speaking or writing.

Skip

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Insert punctuation & capitalization to make the following a correct and
coherent (if not a little tourtured).

fred where guido had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the reader

punctuation, including quote marks, I presume?

it's not time to bring out "d'ä ä e å, å i åa ä e ö" yet, I hope?

</F>

 

[Aahz]

Reminds me of this old classic:

Insert punctuation & capitalization to make the following a correct and
coherent (if not a little tourtured).

fred where guido had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the reader

"I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

 

[Michael Spencer]

punctuation, including quote marks, I presume?

it's not time to bring out "d'ä ä e å, å i åa ä e ö" yet, I hope?

</F>

Allowing quotation, almost anything is possible, e.g.,


Fred! Where Guido had had "had", Had had had "had had". "Had had" had a better
effect on the reader

or simply

"fred", where Guido had "had had had had had had had had had", had a better
effect on the reader

M

 

[Mike Meyer]

I always loved the demonstration that English requires backtracking:
"The old man the ship."

<mike

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

I always loved the demonstration that English requires backtracking:
"The old man the ship."

Linguists call that "garden path sentences", because they lead the
reader/listener up the garden path.

Here are some more examples:

The horse raced past the barn fell.

The man who hunts ducks out on weekends.

The cotton clothing is usually made of grows in Mississippi.

The prime number few.

Fat people eat accumulates.

The tycoon sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money wanted to kill
JR.

 

[Dan Sommers]

Linguists call that "garden path sentences", because they lead the
reader/listener up the garden path.

Here are some more examples:

[ examples snipped ]

And the ever-popular, ever-ambiguous:

Women can fish.

Regards,
Dan

 

[Steve Holden]

Michael Spencer wrote:
[...]

Allowing quotation, almost anything is possible, e.g.,


Fred! Where Guido had had "had", Had had had "had had". "Had had" had a better
effect on the reader

or simply

"fred", where Guido had "had had had had had had had had had", had a better
effect on the reader

M

All this remind me about the Member of Parliament who was required to
apologise for calling one of his opposite numbers a liar. He did so by
reading out the statement

"I called the Honorable member a liar it is true and I am sorry for it",
adding that the Honorable member could insert the punctuation wherever
he so chose.

regards
Steve

 

[Rocco Moretti]

Rocco Moretti wrote:




punctuation, including quote marks, I presume?

Quote marks are acceptable, but no more than two words are inside each set.


B
A
D
G
E
R

..
..
..

E
R


S
P
O
I
L
E
R

W
A
R
N
I
N
G

The "accepted" way to do it is:

Fred, where Guido had had "had", had had "had had." "Had had" had had a
better effect on the reader.

meaning approximately

In the place where Guido previously put the word "had", Fred had
previously put the phrase "had had." Fred's choice of phrasing was more
appreciated by the reder.

 

[Dave Hansen]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:33:07 -0600 in comp.lang.python, Rocco Moretti

[...]

fred where guido had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the reader

I've seen this before as

bill had had had but will had had had had had had or had had been
correct had had had

Regards,
-=Dave

 

[Sion Arrowsmith]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E



(Good grief, I've not done that in *years*.)

Buffalo from the city of Buffalo, which are intimidated by buffalo
from Buffalo, also intimidate buffalo from Buffalo.

I didn't say it was *good* English, but it is *legal* English.

I *think* that's similar to the one I know about the cannibalistic
behaviour of some oysters, which split open other oysters (to eat
them). It starts:

"Oysters oysters split split."

Oysters which oysters split become split.

But there's nothing to stop a third set of oysters predating on the
ones doing the splitting:

"Oysters oysters oysters split split split."

And so on. My brain hurts too much to work out if you can do the
same to the buffaloes.

And here endeth today's lesson in recursion.

 

[Neil Schemenauer]

[AMK]

You may suggest that I should process my e-mail more promptly.

No, I'm not suggesting you how to work, no more that I would accept that
you force me into working your way. If any of us wants to force the
other to speak through robots, that one is not far from unspeakable...

This is why things need to go into public trackers, or wiki pages.

Whatever means the maintainer wants to fill his preservation needs, he
is free to use them. The problem arises when the maintainer wants
imposing his own work methods on others. Let contributors be merely
contributors, and learn how to recognise contributions as such and say
thank you, instead of trying to turn contributors into maintainers.

Either I don't understand what you are saying or you are being a
hypocrite. Andrew is saying that he doesn't have time to detail
with all the messages that get sent to him personally. What do you
propose he should do? I think people expect more that a message
saying "Thanks for you contribution. PS: Since I don't have time to
do anything with it, your message will now be discarded.".

Neil

 

[BartlebyScrivener]

The actress Margaret Anglin left this note in the dressing froom of
another actress:

'Margaret Anglin says Mrs. Fiske is the best actress in America.'

Mrs. Fiske added two commas and returned the note: 'Margaret Anglin,
says Mrs. Fiske, is the best actress in America.'

Or this, from a George Will column:

Huge doctrinal consequences flow from the placing of a comma in what
Jesus, when on the cross, said to the thief (Luke 23:43): 'Verily, I
say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise' or 'Verily,
I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' The
former leaves little room for purgatory.