From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Apr 13 10:24:30 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 29384 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2004 17:24:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2004 17:24:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2004 17:24:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BDRdN-0001Io-Qw for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:23:41 -0700 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 1BDRcZ-0001Hk-ND; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:22:51 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BDRcQ-0001HE-Vd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:22:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20040413172212.75258.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.60] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:22:12 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:22:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040413164011.GK21966@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7539 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: On parser extensions. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22013 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > xorxes pointed out that "pabi'ipazeva'e" is currently not grammatical, > whether you shove all the words together or not. :-) The reason seems > to be that the current parsers don't wait long enough, and try to > interpret things as "le pa bi'i ". The EBNF grammar has: tanru-unit-2 = (number | lerfu-string) MOI # number = PA [PA | lerfu-word] ... lerfu-string = lerfu-word [PA | lerfu-word] ... Your PEG grammar seems to agree: tanru-unit-2 <- (number / lerfu-string) MOI free* number <- PA (PA / lerfu-word)* lerfu-string <- lerfu-word (PA / lerfu-word)* So I don't see how it manages to get a {bi'i} in there. > My questions are: > > 1. Did any of you have that kind of trouble parsing this sentence by > hand? Unlikely. The intention is quite obvious. But according to the grammar, MOI takes only a pure number. > 2. Does this count as a change to the language, or merely cleaning up > LR(1) issues?[1] Do you mean allowing {quantifier MOI}? If it can be done, I think I'd be in favour, but it would count as a change, wouldn't it? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/