Received-SPF: none (google.com: me@v4hn.de does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=85.13.134.113;
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:17:13 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL: I'd like to drop the formal grammars.
Message-ID: <20141001121713.GA10460@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
References: <20141001075910.GU14210@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <20141001112349.GA1247@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
 <CAO7bV+jdhOuFtyfBZxFk426bGvxGmNfpBd2LOZMJ92nHEaLLDg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+jdhOuFtyfBZxFk426bGvxGmNfpBd2LOZMJ92nHEaLLDg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:48:35PM +0400, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> 2014-10-01 15:23 GMT+04:00 v4hn <me@v4hn.de>:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:59:10AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > In the age of ubiquitous internet, I feel that the entire Formal
> > > Grammars chapter simply doesn't belong in a printed book.
> > >
> > > Does anyone disagree?
> >
> > Yes. Please leave it in. The book is called _C_LL and the formal
> > grammar is _definitely_ part of the language. [...]
> >
> > I also do hope the YACC grammar will be replaced by a PEG grammar
> > in the next version.

So, I just had another look at the relevant chapter.
pe'i It is, indeed, important to keep the formal grammar within the book.
However, that does not mean we have to have two representations of the very same
thing in there. The EBNF grammar should be enough, so I agree that (by pages)
most of the "formal grammars" chapter (i.e. the yacc grammar) could
(and probably should) be removed. This would include all the rule numbering
in the EBNF grammar that references the yacc rules.

> > If people feel really uncomfortable because there is no explanation
> > of the syntax of the grammar description, then we should _add_ one
> > instead of removing the grammar.
>
> Exactly, we should add one. Who will do it?
> If no one then it's of absolutely no use and should return to the book when
> it gets that explanation. Otherwise it's still not Complete.

Turns out the EBNF rules are explained and even described as "human readable".
So there's no problem here.


v4hn

--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=AweL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DocE+STaALJfprDB--