From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 25 11:42:14 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:42:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LFw61-0002Aw-BI for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:42:14 -0800 Received: from mx.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LFw5y-0002A7-BN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:42:13 -0800 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBPJfqNw025054 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:41:52 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.12.8/Submit) id mBPJfqAJ003015 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:41:52 GMT Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:41:52 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: gleki xisri'i Message-ID: <20081225194149.GA28595@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <20081225043944.GA29775@sdf.lonestar.org> <20081225094052.GH10930@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081225094052.GH10930@digitalkingdom.org> Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15146 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: minimiscience@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list de'i li 25 pi'e 12 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Robin Lee Powell .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > You seem to be relying on yacc's %prec marker. .skamyxatra Yes, that's the idea. > I'd like some evidence that this reduces to a CFG, please, because it sure > doesn't look that way to me. I don't see how it wouldn't be a context-free grammar. A Yacc grammar without precedence rules is context-free (albeit possibly ambiguous), correct? I am simply indicating to Yacc how the ambiguous rules should be solved using only the precedences of the rules and a single look-ahead token. If using LALR(1) makes a grammar context-sensitive, you've really shot yourself in the foot. At the very least, all of the relevant information I can find online indicates that Yacc input is always context-free, including the official Yacc specification at . Also worth noting is the Wikipedia page for "LALR parser", which explicitly states that LALR is used for context-free grammars. > It looks like a yacc-specific trick. I wouldn't call it a "trick"; it's a documented & well-known feature. Besides, so what if it's Yacc-specific? Yacc (along with its GNU implementation, Bison) is one of the more popular parser generators (perhaps the most popular; I can't seem to find any usage statistics right now), and you even said in the original e-mail announcing the challenge: > If you produce a grammar, I don't care what parser generator it needs, or > even if such a parser generator exists. I care only that the language is > actually a CFG, and that a parser generator could, in principle, be built for > whatever you came up with. So, I guess I have two questions: what makes you think that %prec makes the grammar non-context-free, and if you were to somehow get a working context-sensitive grammar for a parser generator that is only expected to work for CFGs, what would be the problem, other than being kept from showing that Lojban grammar is context-free, which seems to be nothing more than a personal goal of yours? mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy. -- ko senpi lo du'u do bilga lonu senpi 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.