Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!idallen
From: idallen@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng,net.nlang
Subject: Re: expert-friendly: are long names a waste of time?
Message-ID: <6196@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Nov-83 17:35:37 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.6196
Posted: Sat Nov 26 17:35:37 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 23:18:16 EST
References: <4063@amd70.UUCP>, <141@cae780.UUCP> <6125@watmath.UUCP>, <3976@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24

=======================================================================
    From: israel@umcp-cs.UUCP   Mon, 21-Nov-83 17:24:50 EST

    Of course it can work!  After all, are the two above cases ambiguous
    from a human point of view?  All you need is a recognition procedure
    for a validly constructed mode definition, and also a couple of
    heuristics to use...

The problem with heuristics is that they don't always work.  If you
can tolerate a command language that will sometimes come back to you
and say "what do you really mean?", heuristics are wonderful.  You
can then engage in a dialogue with the command interpreter to sort
out what you really mean to say.  If you carry the idea to extremes,
you eventually end up with a menu-driven interpreter that always asks
what you mean right from sign-on.  I have no objection to this.

If you are designing a command language that is supposed to have a
precise meaning and work first time and every time, you can't use
heuristics that change the meaning of commands.  Every command must have
a unique interpretation, regardless of the current environment in which
it is invoked.  You can't have "chmod 0666 0777" change meaning depending
on whether the current directory contains a file named "0666" or "0777".
-- 
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo