From - Tue Mar 12 10:27:38 1996 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 BAA04324 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 01:44:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199603120644.BAA04324@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 3E345A99 ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 1:46:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:46:06 +0200 Reply-To: Veijo Vilva Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1239 > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:58:51 -0300 > From: "Jorge J. Llambias" > Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i >>CHANGE 46 >... >>The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK >>terms NUhU", > Is NUhI really necessary? Couldn't it be just "GEK terms /NUhU/ GIK > terms /NUhU/"? That would make it much more in tune with the > general use of geks. This would work at the yacc level > (Even better if the first NUhU could be avoided.) 1 shift/reduce conflict > I supppose that there must be some yacc problem with that, but > I don't see why. If "ge sumti gi sumti" is ok, why would "ge sumti sumti > gi sumti sumti" cause any problems? 15 shift/reduce + 15 reduce/reduce conflicts The shift/reduce come from the "ge sumti sumti" part and the reduce/ reduce conflicts from the "gi sumti sumti" part. The last one is quite obvious as there is no way to discriminate between, e.g. [ge sumti sumti gi sumti sumti] [sumti] and [ge sumti sumti gi sumti] [sumti] [sumti] co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------