Trim max number of allowed disjuncts. #1483
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some badly-formed AtomSpace dicts can generate a billion(!) disjuncts, which is impractical for practical applications.
The max-disjuncts to use will typically be deictionary-dependent. But it behaves like a parse option, controlling parsing. So the dictionary provides a default. Use can over-ride at run-time, if they really want to.
|
More than 2G disjuncts will create a problem anyway, due to |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some Atomese dictionaries specify far too many disjuncts: one recent case has a billion (! with a b) in the left-wall (discussion #1479) This is due to a faulty construction of the dictionary, but controlling this is difficult. By contrast, it is easy to control at the link-grammar level. That's what this pull req does.
Disjuncts are selected randomly, up to the max number. This is a reasonable thing to do, as almost all disjuncts are going to give a valid parse, anyway, so there was never any "real reason" for the dictionary to have had that many. So it goes.
The max number is handled as a parse option, but it is up to the dictionary to provide a default value.