From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Mar 21 17:20:42 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81363 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 01:20:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 01:20:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 01:20:41 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.228.12.146]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040322012037.TORK27519.lakemtao03.cox.net@bob.lojban.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:20:37 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040321193052.0357fd90@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:54:06 -0500 To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org,lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 68.1.17.242 From: Bob LeChevalier Subject: Re: [lojban] Error in bnf.300 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21759 At 10:44 AM 3/21/04 -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 "#)". I don't believe so, though I don't pretend to be able to read EBNF as well as the YACC grammar. I could be wrong, but I believe that the EBNF is NOT designed to show the structure within a single rule parses - it just shows what is a legal string. EBNF rules are also not supposed to be self-referencing so it would be invalid to have a text-1 included in the rule for text-1; that is what the "..." construct is supposed to communicate. The first three rules of text_B_2 are in the in order to allow you to stutter: .i .i .i mi klama This was generalized to allow .ije .ije .ije mi klama The "mi klama" gets included when you finally get to the text_c_3 YACC rule/paragraphs EBNF rule. It is possible that the EBNF is incorrect in how it represents the 4th rule of text_B_2, but my mind is twisted in the abbreviated recursion/alternation, so I cannot be sure. If it is incorrect, I think the fix would be to change "| NIHO" to "] [NIHO]", because the EBNF as stated appears to forbid ".i ni'o mi klama" >Here's the grammar.300 part (w/o comments); you mostly want to look at >text_B_2. > >%start text_0 > >%% > >text_0 : text_A_1 > | indicators_411 text_A_1 > | free_modifier_32 text_A_1 > | cmene_404 text_A_1 > | indicators_411 free_modifier_32 text_A_1 > | NAI_581 text_0 > ; > >text_A_1 : JOIK_JEK_422 text_B_2 > /* incomplete JOIK_JEK without preceding I */ > /* compare note on paragraph_10 */ > | text_B_2 > ; > >text_B_2 : I_819 text_B_2 > | I_JEK_820 text_B_2 > | I_BO_811 text_B_2 > | para_mark_410 text_C_3 > | text_C_3 > ; > >text_C_3 : paragraphs_4 > | /* empty */ > ; > > >The test case is "mi broda .i je no da zo'u broda", which jbofi'e chokes on >because of this problem. I believe that it should be rejecting it. (See my other post). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org