From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Mar 21 17:34:41 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 3560 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 01:34:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 01:34:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 01:34:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5EKl-0002iO-2h for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:34:31 -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 1B5EJ0-0002hF-FN; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:42 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5EIo-0002h3-Fe for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:30 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:32:30 -0800 Message-ID: <20040322013230.GD30473@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040321193052.0357fd90@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040321193052.0357fd90@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7286 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: 21761 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:54:06PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > 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. Umm, what? > EBNF rules are also not supposed to be self-referencing That's simply not correct, sorry. BNF is a format for CFGs in general. -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