[developers] Newer 64-bit builds cause Non-structure argument error

[Michael Wayne Goodman]

Yes, it appears the issue has cleared up. Thank you.

And I am also interested in the answer to Woodley's question about
possible LNK formats (I was not aware of any besides the <x:y> span).
Then I can update the MrsRfc page to include them.

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Woodley Packard
<sweaglesw at sweaglesw.org> wrote:
> I ran into an MRS with that type of LNK information a few weeks ago and ended up making ACE a bit less picky about what's between the < and >.  There are about 4 formats discussed in a comment in the relevant LKB code, including the empty '<>' discussed in this thread, but Stephan's reply seemed to me to suggest that the '<>' is a bug rather than a feature.  For the sake of future clarity, could someone please enumerate what formats are actually considered valid?  The wiki "MrsRfc" page only gives characterization, e.g. '<3:10>', and if there are other acceptable formats it should be extended.
>
> Woodley
>
> On Aug 12, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Stephan Oepen wrote:
>
>> hi again, mike,
>>
>> i just checked in new (32- and 64-bit) LOGON binaries.
>>
>> the MRS comparison problem you reported was caused
>> by bogus LNK information (`<>', no content) on predicate
>> symbols.  it seems this was introduced by a code change
>> (from february 2012, though the first builds that included
>> it probably date to mid-may) i had made.  i have changed
>> the LNK creation to avoid the bogus outputs; i also made
>> LNK reading more robust, and further wrapped the MRS
>> comparison calls from [incr tsdb()], to catch conditions
>> thrown from the [incr tsdb()]-external code.
>>
>> could you please see whether the latest builds work for
>> your purposes?  i am about to commit a revision to the
>> [incr tsdb()] database schema (to better support forest-
>> based treebanking), and it would be nice to know there
>> is a functional revision in SVN before releasing a not
>> fully backwards-compatible change ...
>>
>> best, oe
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
>> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>> it looks as if you parsed using the LKB for this run?
>>>
>>> Yes, our regression testing framework still parses with the LKB.
>>>
>>>> the MRSs in current/tiniest are not well-formed, due
>>>> to bogus characterization, e.g. "_dog_n_rel"<>.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, I see. I also confirm that I get these empty characterizations
>>> when parsing interactively in the LKB. I do not get this problem when
>>> parsing with cheap.
>>>
>>>> i can't quite guess how you arrive at this, but would
>>>> a (tiniest and self-contained, if possible) grammar to
>>>> debug this further.  do you have a suitable grammar
>>>> (where, i guess, just browsing the MRS in the LKB
>>>> should reveal the above problem on your side too)?
>>>
>>> Sure. I attach the "tiniest" grammar. Note that "tiniest" is not the
>>> only grammar showing the problem (indeed, I think all are), but I use
>>> it for debugging because of its small size. I thought that perhaps our
>>> REPP was malformed, since we started using one for tokenization
>>> recently, but that doesn't explain why different versions of the LOGON
>>> tree lead to different behavior. Anyway, I hope you have some better
>>> ideas than I do.
>>>
>>> Note that tiniest is not English. You can use the following sentences
>>> to test parsing:
>>>
>>> dog slept
>>> dog cat chased
>>>
>>>> cheers, oe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
>>>> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>>>> i would
>>>>>> like to think you should then also see this issue in the
>>>>>> interactive environment?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct; I now see the error when using the podium. I didn't
>>>>> think to turn on the MRS field.
>>>>>
>>>>>> if so, could you just tar(1) up the two profiles that you
>>>>>> compare in detail and send them to me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly. I attach the gold and parsed profiles of the "tiniest" grammar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Michael Wayne Goodman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Michael Wayne Goodman
>



-- 
-Michael Wayne Goodman