From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 28 23:01:15 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B7qli-0008Cj-8O for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:01:10 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:01:10 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1) Message-ID: <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7388 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 Both the official parser choke on mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja but are fine with mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja In the latter case, "pu ku" is descended from "term" and the rest is "gek-sentence". This is *exactly* what my parser does with the first case. Am I correct in my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting the first case, given the infinite lookahead required to realize that the remainder is a gek-sentence and that the pu *must* end immediately? In other words, is the fact that the first case doesn't work a pure LR(1) issue, or am I missing some ambiguity that allowing the first case introduces? -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