From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:45:23 2010
Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Fri Dec  1 08:28:32 1995
From: Paulo Barreto <BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM>
Subject:      LR(k) Lojban Grammar
To:         lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  1 08:28:32 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <6niJlDN4lKH.A.w_E.Du0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.