From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 25 16:12:41 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LG0Jl-00065J-4k for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:12:41 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LG0Jl-00065C-2A for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:12:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:12:41 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: gleki xisri'i Message-ID: <20081226001241.GK10930@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20081225043944.GA29775@sdf.lonestar.org> <20081225094052.GH10930@digitalkingdom.org> <20081225194149.GA28595@sdf.lonestar.org> <20081225202457.GJ10930@digitalkingdom.org> <20081225220403.GA29347@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081225220403.GA29347@sdf.lonestar.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-archive-position: 15149 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, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:04:05PM +0000, Minimiscience wrote: > de'i li 25 pi'e 12 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Robin Lee Powell .fy. cusku > zoi skamyxatra. > > We asked for a general CFG, not something that only works in > > some specific grammar generator. > .skamyxatra > > When did you say that? In your original e-mail > () you > said, in addition to the passage quoted earlier, "Produce a > working CFG for Lojban, in any format that some parser generator > somewhere can accept...". I don't see any restriction to a > general CFG anywhere in that thread. What part of "working CFG" was unclear? What you produced isn't one, as far as I can tell. What you produced is exactly the same as the current official parser: a yacc grammar that uses hard-to-port tricks to deal with elidable terminators. > > Furthermore, and this is much more important, unless I'm really > > missing something you're *changing the precedence as the grammar > > is parsed*. That is, if a parse doesn't work without a > > particular terminator you drop the precedence of that > > terminator-free production to zero *at parse time*. If that's > > reducable to a 4-tuple a la > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_free_grammar I'd be > > *really* surprised indeed! > > That's not how it works. If the parser must choose between > reducing the current construct and shifting the next terminal > before reducing, it uses the precedence rules to determine which > action to take, and these precedence rules are set in stone when > Yacc parses its input. In the case of the Lojban grammar, if a > construct can be terminated and the terminator is the next input > symbol, the terminator is shifted onto the stack, and then the > entire construct is reduced. This takes place regardless of > whether it leads to a valid parse tree. OK. That's not how I read the page; I read it that %prec isn't processed until that point in the tree is reached. Regardless, I can't verify any of this myself because I haven't been able to run it, as I said in another mail. Some help there would be nice. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.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.