Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id RAA18774 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:16:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199511282216.RAA18774@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 31AB6E49 ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 16:58:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 16:55:06 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X1, X2, etc. etc. etc. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 28 17:16:10 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Paulo: > As you describe them, they seem to be syntactical simplifications -- > something to make grammar more orthogonal. Exactly. There is nothing really new that you can say with these changes, but you can say what you could before in a simpler manner. > Should I assume you checked > whether the LALR(1) property still holds? I didn't personally (I wouldn't know how), but I believe John checked them when I first proposed them last year and there was no problem. > If so, all three changes > sound OK (but I'll bet many people won't be satisfied with the JA/JOI > quasi-equivalence :-) Those who don't like the extension don't have to use it, but I don't see why should there be an arbitrary restriction in something that seems natural within the scheme of the language. Jorge