From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 25 16:48:20 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 61131 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2004 23:48:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jun 2004 23:48:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2004 23:48:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1Be0NY-0007x0-EP for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:45:08 -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 4.32) id 1Be0Ml-0007wF-NV; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:19 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1Be0MZ-0007w1-U2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20040625234407.GN17338@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i X-archive-position: 8160 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: terminators X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22601 On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:37:57PM -0400, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > My question, though, is not "Is it desirable?". The question is: > Would it be possible to simply replace the terminators in the current > grammar with this new kind of terminator? Would the grammar still > work? I suspect look-ahead problems and/or undesirable interactions. It would probably work fine in my grammar. None of the others handle elidable terminators directly. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi