From lojban+bncCLr6ktCfBBCG2ujlBBoEKBpJnQ@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 16 15:54:14 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P7Fdi-0001M4-AQ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:54:14 -0700 Received: by pwi9 with SMTP id 9sf1384979pwi.16 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:54:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:received:date:from:to :subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; bh=TW45cqxBkFQUpuXSffExJ8Hkf88itMiC2O+XID7TTes=; b=bq88y+LnCa5CbJ43fn89a5lgZp0tvH2bHPhVY4+qIO1hTI4KHqeMpydbx085OJwDed v4bhvs7jaLZvav9MX96EgDPiiWvifmyuEO1V7CeNzyOLfJ2BYZH2cCzzxDU9INkrYkMt Cwjzkz4Vwtfra9qn3yQsODbdbgiSv31QQpIPE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; b=JhOCDMsMGl0+lfa7RY47rE5pKha5r9xjnng+JG1gc4sr5bOZza/kGzXdiwOtZerUmf uz2RYjhEdYYErAqr1m+tokfouqDVl8AZTVGiu2SmsaFykPqntQWt3IH5s2lLcUvW4Em3 zI73u3AkOQu8rKOykgGWxv5unwgxBEpO71qyg= Received: by 10.142.152.27 with SMTP id z27mr69278wfd.33.1287269638451; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.70.10 with SMTP id s10ls4507426wfa.1.p; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.200.16 with SMTP id x16mr1474908wff.45.1287269637699; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.200.16 with SMTP id x16mr1474907wff.45.1287269637677; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-px0-f176.google.com (mail-px0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n6si14106320wfl.7.2010.10.16.15.53.57; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.212.176 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=209.85.212.176; Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so462281pxi.7 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.158.19 with SMTP id g19mr1983919wfe.319.1287269636059; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-68-35-167-179.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [68.35.167.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm8502288wfa.11.2010.10.16.15.53.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:53:51 -0600 From: ".alyn.post." To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions on isolating utterances before completely parsing Message-ID: <20101016225351.GE10877@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: <385d6b2f-c484-494b-9241-6d7429ce0ec3@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <20101014234221.GC2916@alice.local> <20101016185701.GB10877@alice.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.212.176 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) smtp.mail=alanpost@sunflowerriver.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 04:04:21PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote: > Does it have to use PEG? .camxes. uses a RATS! parser, maybe that is less > of a "black box" and would work better for this? I'm only guessing, as I > don't know thing 2 about parsers in general. > I believe RATS! is a particular implementation of PEG parsing. So PEG parsing is a parsing technique, and Rats! is one of the implementations of that technique. Robin talks about this issue as it pertains to Lojban with some depth here: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/ Bryan Ford's Master's Thesis on Packrat Parsers is suprisingly accessible, including what makes PG (Parsing Grammars) more expressive than CFG's (Context-free Grammars): http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~baford/packrat/thesis/ He does make the assumption you're familiar with parsers in general. The Abstract on that page is a great summary of what trade-offs you make with packrat parsers vs Yacc-style parsers. The book I learned parsing from is the "Dragon Book": _Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools_. There may be a better book these days, but I won't be surprised if there isn't. -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.