From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Dec 1 08:28:32 1995 Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM Date: Fri Dec 1 08:28:32 1995 Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: LR(k) Lojban Grammar X-To: lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET To: John Cowan Status: OR Message-ID: lojbab: >But even LR(4) would not eliminate a couple of the lexer/preparser >constructs, since some (like numbers) are not LR(k) for any k, though >it would have allowed the grammar to be significantly simpler. Do you have a proof of this? In which way do numbers destroy the LR(k) property? lojbab: >It is now probably too late because it would take too much work to >verify that any given LR(non-1) grammar generated the same Lojban >grammar, or even anything close. Chris: >Probably true as a practical matter, but eventually knock wood there'll >be academic interest in the language and we'll want to be able to >define it in a more theoretically understandable way. So it ought to >be at least a long-term goal. Agreed. co'o mi'e paulos. Paulo S. L. M. Barreto -- Software Analyst -- Unisys Brazil Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.) e'osai ko sarji la lojban.