Closed jgilme1 closed 11 years ago
Would it work instead of a PatternTagger with descriptor PT
would also create types for each group? I.e. if there are named groups G1
and G2
then named groups would turn into PT.G1
and PT.G2
?
I'm confused. Would PT.G1 and PT.G2 be Type objects?
Yes. So the PT
tagger would make 3 different types. I don't like adding functionality to Type
that only pertains to the PatternTagger
.
Ok, I see. Could there be a different way to give a Type from a PatternTagger access to its named Groups or will they only be associated by the descriptor String?
will they only be associated by the descriptor String?
That is my goal--but maybe it's insufficient. I'd love to hear why.
We came to an agreement of making the PatternTagger
return a subtype of Type
called GroupedType
, so I'm not merging this preq.
Hmm... I'll need to think about this. Maybe we can talk about it tomorrow at 9:30.