Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls>
Return-Path: <gls@Think.COM>
Date: Thu Apr 11 02:58:59 1991
From: Guy Steele <cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls>
Message-Id: <9104102040.AA27044@ukko.think.com>
To: ash@rpi.edu
Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
In-Reply-To: Arthur Hyun's message of Wed, 10 Apr 91 13:51:26 -0400 <9104101752.AA22605@its.rpi.edu>
Subject: Uncertainties in EBNF Notation 
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Apr 11 02:58:59 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls

   Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 13:51:26 -0400
   From: Arthur Hyun <ash@rpi.edu>

   >The elidable terminators make the language unambiguous, but may often be
   >omitted without loss of ambiguity, especially when there is more than one
   >in a row.  For example: [ deleted ]

   I'd like to test my knowledge.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this
   is very similar, if not identical to the Common Lisp notation ]?
   (that is, it closes all open parenthesis pairs, eg (go i (is store red]
   paraphrasing the lojban into Lisp-like English).

I think you mean Interlisp, not Common Lisp.
--Guy Steele