[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com*Subject*: Uncertainties in EBNF Notation*From*: cbmvax!uunet!m2xenix!onion!tessi!loop!dont (Don Taylor)*Date*: Mon, 8 Apr 91 18:37:28 PDT*Cc*: dont

I sent this to lojbab and he suggested I post it here. I just received the ju'i lobypli mailing with the lojban machine grammar in ebnf notation. It seems that the notation is ambiguous in that no precedence is specified for the notation. For example indicators&free... may denote (indicators&free)... or indicators&(free...) etc. Many of the other ebnf operators are open to the same interpretation. I would greatly appreciate a more precise definition of precedence, and associativity if relevant. Item 10, "// encloses an elidable terminator, which may be omitted (without change of meaning) if no grammatical ambiguity results" disturbs me. Reading bnf as a definition of a language, which I take as the definition of what is grammatical and what is not, leaves me uncertain of how to interpret the document. Thanks Don Taylor 503-644-7631 loop!dont@tessi.UUCP dont@loop.UUCP tessi!loop!dont@nosun.west.sun.com

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Uncertainties in EBNF Notation***From:*cowan (John Cowan)

- Prev by Date:
**upcoming trip to San Francisco** - Next by Date:
**Re: Uncertainties in EBNF Notation** - Previous by thread:
**Re: upcoming trip to San Francisco** - Next by thread:
**Re: Uncertainties in EBNF Notation** - Index(es):