From nessus@free.fr Tue Apr 29 11:51:29 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.25] helo=mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19AaC7-0002Bo-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:11 -0700
Received: from free.fr (AMontpellier-104-1-14-43.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.253.223.43])
	by mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8405134000AC
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:50:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3EAEC956.6040302@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:49:58 +0200
From: Lionel Vidal <nessus@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)
References: <20030429163929.62063.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030429163929.62063.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 5019
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jorge Llambías wrote:

>>>Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}? Is anybody going to remember that
>>>you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? (Or rather that it will parse as {pu
>>>ku na'e ka'e}.) 
>>>      
>>>
>>For the same reason you can't say "pu bai klama": LALR(1). 
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, if that is the case, that would be a good, justified answer.
>I admit I can't always tell why something makes LALR(1) fail, as
>in this case. I don't understand why {pu na'e ka'e} would be
>problematic.
>  
>
Is there any requirement for the grammar to be LALR(1)?  I don't think 
so and it would
be rather pointless, because as it stands now, the grammar is not 
globally LALR(1)
as rightly stated in step 5 of yacc preliminaries in CLL.  So IMO, this 
is not a good,
justified answer :-)
More generally, I don't think that lojban should ever be limited in any 
way just because
we happen to use a given computing related tool (and in that case IMO a 
rather old and
limited one).  

Best wishes,
Lionel