Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKY2s-0000ZUC; Tue, 28 Nov 95 23:58 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 81E7FAFF ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 22:58:34 +0100 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 788 Lines: 22 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