From sentto-44114-20381-1058109472-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sun Jul 13 08:18:45 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.77]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bicJ-0001uD-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:18:23 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-20381-1058109472-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2003 15:17:52 -0000 X-Sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 47307 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2003 15:17:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2003 15:17:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2003 15:17:50 -0000 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.1d8.dc6e8e5 (4394) for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1d8.dc6e8e5.2c42d21a@wmconnect.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 12 From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbaner MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:17:46 EDT Subject: [lojban] more errors in EBNF rules (and other comments) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d8.dc6e8e5.2c42d21a_boundary" X-archive-position: 5878 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_1d8.dc6e8e5.2c42d21a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In looking through the wiki list of grammar rule typos in the Red Book, I noticed they all had large spaces where the missing "|" was supposed to be, so I looked through the whole EBNF grammar for more large spaces, and I found two more, which I then compared with the YACC version: 1) fragment-20 should have a "|" before NA. 2) sumti-tail-111 should have a "|" between the first "sumti-tail-1" and the second "relative-clauses". 3) Another difference I noticed is that where YACC has rules for sumti_90 sumti_A_91 sumti_B_92 sumti_C_93 sumti_D_94 sumti_E_95 sumti_F_96 sumti_G_97 EBNF has sumti90 sumti-191 sumti-292 sumti-393 sumti-494 sumti-595 sumti-697 with no sumti-7 rule and no rule numbered 96. Perhaps sumti-5, sumti-6, and sumti-7 were combined. Here is what I think they should be: sumti-595 = sumti-6 [relative-clauses] | quantifier selbri gap [relative-clauses] sumti-696 = [quantifier] sumti-7 sumti-797 = {text of current rule sumti-697} 4) It looks like rule sumti-292 should be sumti-292 = [sumti-2 joik-ek] sumti-3 instead of (the apparently equivalent) sumti-292 = sumti-3 [joik-ek sumti-3]... Why was so much alteration made to the EBNF version when a straightforward rewrite of the YACC would have been clearer? Stevo --part1_1d8.dc6e8e5.2c42d21a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In looking through the wiki list of grammar rule typos in the Red Book, I noticed they all had large spaces where the missing "|" was supposed to be, so I looked through the whole EBNF grammar for more large spaces, and I found two more, which I then compared with the YACC version:

1) fragment-20 should have a "|" before NA.

2) sumti-tail-111 should have a "|" between the first "sumti-tail-1" and the second "relative-clauses".

3)  Another difference I noticed is that where YACC has rules for

sumti_90
sumti_A_91
sumti_B_92
sumti_C_93
sumti_D_94
sumti_E_95
sumti_F_96
sumti_G_97

EBNF has

sumti90
sumti-191
sumti-292
sumti-393
sumti-494
sumti-595
sumti-697

with no sumti-7 rule and no rule numbered 96.  Perhaps sumti-5, sumti-6, and sumti-7 were combined.  Here is what I think they should be:

sumti-595 = sumti-6 [relative-clauses] | quantifier selbri gap [relative-clauses]

sumti-696 = [quantifier] sumti-7

sumti-797 = {text of current rule sumti-697}

4)  It looks like rule sumti-292 should be

sumti-292 = [sumti-2 joik-ek] sumti-3

instead of (the apparently equivalent)

sumti-292 = sumti-3 [joik-ek sumti-3]...

Why was so much alteration made to the EBNF version when a straightforward rewrite of the YACC would have been clearer?

Stevo
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_1d8.dc6e8e5.2c42d21a_boundary--