From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jul 13 11:00:54 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15UK-0006iG-Cs for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:00:36 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15UK-0006i9-4D for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:00:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:00:36 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban) Message-ID: <20060713180036.GU18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20060713003616.GD18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060713013545.GF18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060713025542.GH18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560607130709u3fef60c5ubd8f638c795685c0@mail.gmail.com> <20060713165833.GP18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560607131054n4c96b9fcm4777599ae02fa80b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <925d17560607131054n4c96b9fcm4777599ae02fa80b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 12182 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 Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:54:36PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 7/13/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:09:49AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > >> At least in principle, because maybe the required PEG might be > >> way too complicated to write. Or maybe not, we can at least > >> try. > > > >Erm. camxes is a PEG that parses Lojban as currently defined. > >You helped build it... Perhaps you meant CFG there? > > camxes parses Lojban as defined by camxes. It is not a perfect > match for Lojban as defined in CLL, even though it's pretty close. > (And some things were actually left undefined by CLL, such as the > SA mess.) It's a *lot* closer than any CFG could be, though, as far as I can tell. > >> But I don't know how hard it would be to modify the whole PEG > >> so that it fully corresponds to a CFG. > > > >I don't see the point of doing so; if we're going to make a CFG, > >we should use CFGs to do so, no make a CFG-alike PEG. > > But then we wouldn't have unambiguity in a straightforward way. It is possible to construct unambigious CFGs. > A reasonable question is why not have both if we could have both. > Maybe there are good reasons not to do it (and I suspect there are > some) but at least for me "that's just the way it is" is not a > very convincing reason. Sure. > >I just don't see the point of butchering Lojban to make a CFG > >that encodes a language that is almost, but not quite, Lojban. > > It wouldn't be butchering it, just extending it. I don't see it that way, myself. I rather like the current behaviour (barfing on wierd input). -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.