From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 21 11:18:14 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30)
	id 1B58SX-0007op-7Q
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:09 -0800
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:09 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300
Message-ID: <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 7281
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:44:54AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> There's a contradiction between grammar.300 and bnf.300 and,
> regardless of baselining issues, bnf.300 is *clearly* wrong:
> 
>     text-1<2> = [(I [jek | joik] [[stag] BO] #) ... | NIhO ... #] [paragraphs]
> 
> The problem is that there's supposed to be a "text-1" betweev "BO]"
> and "#)".

Also, "NIhO ..." should be "(NIhO [paragraph]) ...".

BUT WAIT!

There's MORE!

If you act now, you'll also receive "This doesn't actually fix the
problem", absolutely free!

This only fixes *leading" ijek statements.   The problem with "mi broda
.i je no da zo'u broda" still exists.

Furthermore, I can't find anything in grammar.300 that allows parsing of
that sentence, although the official parser seems to handle it just
fine.

The *reason* the official parser handles it is apparently due to a bug in the
lexer:

paragraph_10            :  statement_11
                        |  fragment_20
                        |  paragraph_10  I_819  statement_11
                        |  paragraph_10  I_819  fragment_20
                        |  paragraph_10  I_819
                        /* this last fixes an erroneous start to a sentence,
                           and permits incomplete JOIK_JEK after I, as well
                           in answer to questions on those connectives  */
                        ;

I_819                   :  lexer_S_995
                        |  lexer_S_995  free_modifier_32
                        ;

lexer_S_995             :  lexer_S_719  I_545
                        ;

I_545 is just ".i".

Code for lexer_S_995:

token *lexer_S_995_driver()
        {
        return cpd_reduce(I_root_956(), 995);
        }

I_root_956              :  I_545
                        |  I_545  simple_JOIK_JEK_957
                        ;



So, the reason that the example works in the official parser is because
lexer_S_995 erroneously accepts an I followed by a JEK/JOIK, rather than just
an I.

Even with that, "mi broda .i je bo no da zo'u broda" fails in the official
parser because lexer_S will not erroneously accept a BO.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui