From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDNrbbnBBoEFLLSPA@googlegroups.com Wed Nov 24 14:51:10 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PLOB6-0006wZ-81; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:51:10 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf194815wyb.16 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:57 -0800 (PST) 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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=+CSS3Vzhb4Vw0fHcICDR0Dr/Jm6W0Gj0hrlmoJ+VhfM=; b=2badRM1R+NFfEbpJoXWHdDHp6Ey/dLQ/cbFODLigh6u5x6Nhc5vj/pid8pBdrXxS9Z kd/7qc4lH4Tb+pjlSwSVLQRttMsdneHMVq1vAi/mH2Ds5xKXuP51SKnnssYvUyDgUi1d zV7VyywiZxPxPoMPO28c1tnCqK6mMxmE1dqOc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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; b=V/1lJWh3BRt3weNMrfjk5svEk7eV047jxVxM7PleiQ/x3K3QEizBU11Lo2ExBMS5Oc /VVmIM8miHKH1ZEGOqDBVZMicbrxsjEp1/cN8yrWJw4bwWvUUiUbAk/zNtXVpGSEuPu7 HHBd/NI3KkuTMpDSM/tBU/rHmlyR2StEruQTA= Received: by 10.216.237.35 with SMTP id x35mr965579weq.5.1290639053605; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:53 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.62.75 with SMTP id x53ls502802wec.3.p; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.72.210 with SMTP id t60mr190144wed.3.1290639051700; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.72.210 with SMTP id t60mr190143wed.3.1290639051558; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l5si2148weq.15.2010.11.24.14.50.50; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174; Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 28so230060wyb.19 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.146.202 with SMTP id i10mr4686449wbv.170.1290639050149; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:50:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101124155558.GC12462@alice.local> References: <20101123180616.GB10838@alice.local> <20101123181027.GQ9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101123181658.GR9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101123183210.GD10838@alice.local> <20101123184601.GS9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101123185735.GF10838@alice.local> <20101123190215.GW9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101123192523.GH10838@alice.local> <20101124081733.GF9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101124155558.GC12462@alice.local> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:50:50 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] NORATS, SPACE, and PUBLIC in PEG grammar From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com 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 On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:55 PM, .alyn.post. wrote: > > Do you think it is better for the LLG to publish a PEG file that requires > work to use at all, or to publish a reference inmplementation that > introduces more dependencies than a PEG specification but is closer > to something "working." (The question was not addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway:) The former. > (Or, as always, secret option #3, ignoring > my false dichotomy and giving an answer unconstrained by the > phrasing of my question.) There's no reason why the LLG should not publish an implementation as well, but the one afforded official status should be the specification, not the implementation. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.