From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Mar 21 11:19:43 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 87157 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2004 19:19:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2004 19:19:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2004 19:19:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B58U1-0007pw-4U for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:19:41 -0800 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B58Sf-0007pC-8o; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:17 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B58SX-0007op-7Q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:09 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:18:09 -0800 Message-ID: <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7281 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21756 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:44:54AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > There's a contradiction between grammar.300 and bnf.300 and, > regardless of baselining issues, bnf.300 is *clearly* wrong: > > text-1<2> = [(I [jek | joik] [[stag] BO] #) ... | NIhO ... #] [paragraphs] > > The problem is that there's supposed to be a "text-1" betweev "BO]" > and "#)". Also, "NIhO ..." should be "(NIhO [paragraph]) ...". BUT WAIT! There's MORE! If you act now, you'll also receive "This doesn't actually fix the problem", absolutely free! This only fixes *leading" ijek statements. The problem with "mi broda .i je no da zo'u broda" still exists. Furthermore, I can't find anything in grammar.300 that allows parsing of that sentence, although the official parser seems to handle it just fine. The *reason* the official parser handles it is apparently due to a bug in the lexer: paragraph_10 : statement_11 | fragment_20 | paragraph_10 I_819 statement_11 | paragraph_10 I_819 fragment_20 | paragraph_10 I_819 /* this last fixes an erroneous start to a sentence, and permits incomplete JOIK_JEK after I, as well in answer to questions on those connectives */ ; I_819 : lexer_S_995 | lexer_S_995 free_modifier_32 ; lexer_S_995 : lexer_S_719 I_545 ; I_545 is just ".i". Code for lexer_S_995: token *lexer_S_995_driver() { return cpd_reduce(I_root_956(), 995); } I_root_956 : I_545 | I_545 simple_JOIK_JEK_957 ; So, the reason that the example works in the official parser is because lexer_S_995 erroneously accepts an I followed by a JEK/JOIK, rather than just an I. Even with that, "mi broda .i je bo no da zo'u broda" fails in the official parser because lexer_S will not erroneously accept a BO. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui