Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:43:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+gZtgLznD8zjE9tRULYxWXwrF_R__AxuoyWehK2pqgXXSYPMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] MEX ROI, MEX MOI, MEX MAI
From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c31170ceca4c04e2457313
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Today we found that you can't use MEX with ROI, MOI, or MAI,
    even in the PEG. camxes treats a closed MEX (e.g. {vei mo'e ko'a [te'u ve'o]}
    as a "quantifier", distinct from PA* (i.e. PA* = PA | PA PA*), which it calls
    a "number". With MOI we have the YACC-friendly hack "ME LI MEX MOI", which
    still cooperates with the PEG, but as best I can tell there is no such hack
    for ROI and MAI. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (blindbravado[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

--001a11c31170ceca4c04e2457313
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Today we found that you can't use MEX with ROI, MOI, or MAI, even in the
PEG. camxes treats a closed MEX (e.g. {vei mo'e ko'a [te'u ve'o]} as a
"quantifier", distinct from PA* (i.e. PA* = PA | PA PA*), which it calls a
"number". With MOI we have the YACC-friendly hack "ME LI MEX MOI", which
still cooperates with the PEG, but as best I can tell there is no such hack
for ROI and MAI.

Would anything go wrong if MEX ROI, MEX MOI, and MEX MAI were made allowed
in the PEG? If not, can we get this into camxes?

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--001a11c31170ceca4c04e2457313
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Today we found that you can&#39;t use MEX with ROI, M=
OI, or MAI, even in the PEG. camxes treats a closed MEX (e.g. {vei mo&#39;e=
 ko&#39;a [te&#39;u ve&#39;o]} as a &quot;quantifier&quot;, distinct from P=
A* (i.e. PA* =3D PA | PA PA*), which it calls a &quot;number&quot;. With MO=
I we have the YACC-friendly hack &quot;ME LI MEX MOI&quot;, which still coo=
perates with the PEG, but as best I can tell there is no such hack for ROI =
and MAI.<br>
<br></div>Would anything go wrong if MEX ROI, MEX MOI, and MEX MAI were mad=
e allowed in the PEG? If not, can we get this into camxes?<br><br>mi&#39;e =
la latro&#39;a mu&#39;o<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--001a11c31170ceca4c04e2457313--