From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Apr 04 19:12:43 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAJbK-0001fT-CR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:12:38 -0700 Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:12:38 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] More jbofihe issues. Message-ID: <20040405021238.GG23652@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: 7434 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 To be fair, both of these problems are due to bugs in the official BNF grammar (as compared to grammar.300), and as such are not jbofihe bugs proper. Here they are: .i lu broda li'u .ije brode lu .ije broda li'u Both of those should be acceptable (and both result from the same BNF grammar bug). -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