3 ms·
Ahhhh this is extremely helpful, thank you. I've been puzzling at the mud parsing thing because while it's in the shape of natural language (and somewhat annota
by giraffe_lady 4y ago
Ahhhh this is extremely helpful, thank you. I've been puzzling at the mud parsing thing because while it's in the shape of natural language (and somewhat annotated in it eg there is spurious "decorative" information), it does represent a 1:1 mapping with computation already.
This feels like a much better path than trying to get it into an AST with like yacc or whatever. But since it isn't actually natural language NLP didn't seem right either. I've got a lot of reading to do but this is very interesting.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoI started a comment about DCGs also before seeing rscho's and mncharity's comments above which covered it. If you're going to do any parsing, I don't think there's any better tool than DCGs. It blows my mind that everyone is still trying to kludge their way around regexes instead, when there is such a better tool around. Your mud language is probably a "Controlled Natural Language", btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language Game languages often are.