From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 09 13:21:50 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BC2VV-0002U9-8T for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:21:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:21:45 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Official parser and "lo ni'a zu crino" Message-ID: <20040409202145.GT14789@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040407124110.46977.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040407062416.03375890@pop.east.cox.net> <20040407124110.46977.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040408203833.037595d0@pop.east.cox.net> <20040409051024.GA2886@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040409051024.GA2886@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7519 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 Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 01:10:24AM -0400, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote: > But I am okay with accepting things like "le broda joi le brodi", > since that is not truly an ambiguity but just the result of smarter > resolution of elidable terminators than Yacc allows. To clarify this statement: as the elidable terminators have *never* been formalized, arguing that a change that consists only of smarter "insertion"[1] of elidable terminators is a change makes no sense. A change to what, exactly? The official parser? Sure, but the official parser was never the baseline: grammar.300 is the baseline, and grammar.300 doesn't even come *close* to formalizing the elidable terminators. > I'll also do whatever I'm able to make an actual PEG parser available, > with the same kinds of features (at least) that the official parser > supports. *YAY*! (Seriously, the more work someone else can do, the better). > > Given what we know, the bug must be the tense lexer which somehow is > > not accepting ni'a zu as a valid string. I never looked at the > > lexer internals so I can't debug it. > > Checking the source of lexruleo.c shows that the space-before-time > option was never put in. Here's a patch for Robin's benefit: > > In the function tense_C_979, add the line "TRY(tense_C_979_4);" just > after "TRY(tense_C_979_1);". This makes the order time-space, time, > space-time, space. > > Then add a new function tense_C_979_4, which is a copy of > tense_C_979_3 except that the two CALL lines are in reverse order. Excellent. Thanks. (and a line to lexrules.h) -Robin [1]: My grammar doesn't "insert" anything, as it has no pre-processor; it simply treats elidable terminators as optional. Longest-match and preferrential ordering do the rest. -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rocki morsi