[R] History pruning

[hadley wickham]

> It's not really equivalent, natural language has ambiguities and subtleties
> that computer languages, especially functional languages, intentionally
> don't have.  By their nature, computer languages can be turned into parse
> trees unambiguously and then those trees can be manipulated.

But in some ways that makes things easier - i.e. you don't expect to
be able to summarise a conversation/paper/book in a way that
completely recreates it - some ambiguity is unavoidable.

> But coincidentally I work in a Natural Language Processing group, and one of
> the things we do is create exactly the kind of concise summaries you
> describe. =)

Well good luck!  And I'll be interested to see anything you come up with.

Hadley


-- 
http://had.co.nz/