From sentto-44114-18405-1043598661-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sun Jan 26 08:31:36 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.87])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18cpgy-0005pq-01
	for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:31:32 -0800
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18405-1043598661-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jan 2003 16:31:01 -0000
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 26 Jan 2003 16:31:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 19298 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2003 16:31:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2003 16:31:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blackcat.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2003 16:31:00 -0000
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id A003AA81C; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:30:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: dis
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124202537.03d9ab60@pop.east.cox.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030126015227.03262740@pop.east.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030126015227.03262740@pop.east.cox.net>
Message-Id: <200301261130.59398.phma@webjockey.net>
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:30:59 -0500
Subject: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-archive-position: 3918
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Would it be better to put the check for these invalid cmene forms in the 
validation algorithm, which is the next part I'll write, rather than the 
word-breaking algorithm? The effect would be that e.g. 
/mibEnjilebrablOlailalaus/ would be lexed as {mi benji le brablolai la laus} 
and then the validator would call {laus} invalid; currently it lexes it as 
{mi benji le brablolai la la us} and the lexer calls {us} invalid.

phma

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/