From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 21 17:32:35 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5EIo-0002h3-Fe for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:30 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:30 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300 Message-ID: <20040322013230.GD30473@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040321193052.0357fd90@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040321193052.0357fd90@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7286 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 07:54:06PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > I could be wrong, but I believe that the EBNF is NOT designed to show > the structure within a single rule parses - it just shows what is a > legal string. Umm, what? > EBNF rules are also not supposed to be self-referencing That's simply not correct, sorry. BNF is a format for CFGs in general. -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