On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Michael Montague <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

I have an alternative suggestion for english names. After thinking about it lots more, I am not sure that there needs to be a one-to-one match between short names and english names, just the same expressive power.How about 'maybe', 'greedy', and 'non-greedy':? maybe* (greedy 0 <sre> ...)+ (greedy 1 <sre> ...)>= (greedy <n> <sre> ...)= (greedy <n> <n> <sre> ...)** (greedy <n> <m> <sre> ...)?? (non-greedy 0 1 <sre> ...)*? (non-greedy 0 <sre> ...)**? (non-greedy <n> <m> <sre> ...)

I prefer keeping the 1:1 correspondence between short names

and English names. I also dislike the behavior changing on

the type and number of leading arguments. If you want to

avoid lots of new names I suggest only providing names for

the ** case:

(repeated <n> <m> <sre> ...)

(non-greedy-repeated <n> <m> <sre> ...)

where the special cases can simply be written as their

existing ** equivalents:

? (repeated 0 1 <sre> ...)

* (repeated 0 #f <sre> ...)

+ (repeated 1 #f <sre> ...)
>= (repeated <n> #f <sre> ...)
= (repeated <n> <n> <sre> ...)

But I'll let the people who want English names fight

this out.

Alex