You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I'm hoping to use ContextFn similarly to the anaphora rule for 'he' in the documentation, but pulling out a non-leaf logical form that apparently has children of nonuniform depth.
...but, alas, no luck. I've also tried depth 1 and depth 2, with no success. Some digging and print statements suggest that my first preference ((string ...) is never investigated, and my second preference ((call ...) can never be selected because it has two leaf children of depth 1 and four leaf children of depth 2.
What's the intended behavior of the depth restriction -- are higher-level nodes meant to be completely symmetrical in depth, or would it be alright to replace that currentLevel == depth with currentLevel <= depth?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, I'm hoping to use ContextFn similarly to the anaphora rule for 'he' in the documentation, but pulling out a non-leaf logical form that apparently has children of nonuniform depth.
The context exchange looks like this:
& I would take either a solution for
or for
The documentation suggests a rule like this would work:
...but, alas, no luck. I've also tried depth 1 and depth 2, with no success. Some digging and print statements suggest that my first preference (
(string ...
) is never investigated, and my second preference ((call ...
) can never be selected because it has two leaf children of depth 1 and four leaf children of depth 2.What's the intended behavior of the depth restriction -- are higher-level nodes meant to be completely symmetrical in depth, or would it be alright to replace that
currentLevel == depth
withcurrentLevel <= depth
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: