Received: from localhost ([::1]:54898 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzU3d-0004W9-Qc; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:22:10 -0800 Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:34041) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzU3R-0004Us-HZ for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:22:04 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id rl6so1067808pac.1 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:21:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uHCnW8tf+sfsvolqwezN7GoBF7h0WEYK+pu+NdDxxQI=; b=GAkAels+JVAsyXZcIZt+specVLh7s+KhS6vYeM2U4LXsxryfzqTGSi4qTA88VhUHaR /+eCRn61IGC7DO19h6WTFfaop+2ALcqsIpqh/GhhJCCrIIys96Hmv4v/cXRVWe2C2sCE scR69fx6zLwKYUdlRKq3GbObCsbrKlJBKaPV849LPDTQ+dRtgdAVF43xdOdN1nhrQnTV 1L1jqNCD4lUmdu7qwHvdZnli1p5jugrsM5H1zQlFvEl77eXnKEiFBcHDDh9CghPXpcRI QcAwXWeAwRXJOxawvyY3utu8wWO6ApwAiULqUNXB6tIPeNnjFn1eDn+2TR5bdyisM3NT YJBw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.84.195 with SMTP id b3mr29196147paz.30.1359300111757; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.233.225 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:21:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130126232527.GG13680@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20130124175134.GA14317@mercury.ccil.org> <51017FF7.504@plasmatix.com> <20130124221349.GB20636@mercury.ccil.org> <20130125151703.GB20813@mercury.ccil.org> <20130126232527.GG13680@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:21:51 -0300 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] berbere, berberi X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:25 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit: > >> Whatever issues you may have with the PEG grammar for Lojban (and I >> can think of some) they cannot be about potential ambiguities, it >> can't have any. > > My point is that a PEG grammar processor does not detect LALR-n-ambiguity > in the grammar, which is not its business. YACC does detect LALR-1-ambig= uity. Lojban cannot be parsed with finite lookahead anyway, especially its morphology. You can't determine what kind of word you are parsing before reaching the end of the word, and words don't have a finite maximum length. Since we don't need to detect LALR-n-ambiguity anyway, why would this limitation of a PEG make it not good enough to parse the Lojban morphology? mu'o mi'e xorxes _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste