From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Mar 12 23:08:16 1996 Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA10804 ; Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:08:14 GMT Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 826613265:24443:0; Tue, 12 Mar 96 06:47:45 GMT Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa24186; 12 Mar 96 6:47 GMT Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9786; Tue, 12 Mar 96 01:46:27 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5170; Tue, 12 Mar 96 01:46:53 EDT 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$i X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <826613247.24186.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:58:51 -0300 > From: "Jorge J. Llambias" > Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$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. ---------------------------------