Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tLVLR-0000ZUC; Fri, 1 Dec 95 15:17 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 3CB64013 ; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:17:40 +0100 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:15:00 LCL Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: LR(k) Lojban Grammar X-To: lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 937 Lines: 26 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.