Talk:1421: Future Self

# Dear Future Editor
# As author of the first explanation, I know of what I write. Perhaps minus the snarky code-commenting.
# But I've a feeling there's a better way of writing it, and possibly a different context that I've missed.
#
# ...so over to you.141.101.99.7 08:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph was written with assumption no other content is here yet (because there wasn't) - can someone incorporate it correctly with the rest, please? 141.101.89.217 08:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Dealing with edit conflict) Let me check what you mean. 141.101.99.7 08:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahah! Yes, we were both dealing with edit conflicts, only in different orders (me in here, you in the main article). I think I'm going to let a third party resolve the explanation, it'd probably be best.141.101.99.7 08:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

aaaand dodged by yet another editor 108.162.249.206 08:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally agree with the sentence: "The parsing function seems to have lasted one year longer than expected by the younger Cueball." Younger Cueball expected that the parsing function would fail on or after 2013, which is pretty accurate if it failed in 2014. Djbrasier (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothng wrtten about the trip to Iceland that cueball was plannng to go on (procrastination caused him not to). Maybe something like "in this case, it was that cueball knew he wouldn't go on the trip he planned" but I rewrote it like 5 times, and it didn't work. —Artyer (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the sentence about context free and regular grammars over-interpretates this a bit. First of all, there are many regex engines which support back-references, thus allowing more than regular grammars; second of all, a "kludged" parser very often assumes that the input is grammatically correct and just wants to extract the required information. --108.162.254.32 17:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)