From lojban+bncCK30vq5WEKb3wOcEGgRbYUKO@googlegroups.com Fri Nov 26 14:58:59 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PM7Fn-0002UW-NA; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:59 -0800 Received: by pzk7 with SMTP id 7sf841223pzk.16 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:50 -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:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y0J63QaSihDiaLqsxR0q+4vwIiwKE34N/t5BUEInwPs=; b=GmipmPSaaPM01cMOQCXJ40gwubYmjs2MuhXqN6QrfduHVdOK1Z/qq58ZzBDMyaDAse jU4/vl+KXFYNKGFrAUpDpv/zaDiSNMgvT6QTR8Ked+XJ+/piNuK/PD2jtVuGDk5IcUYy geSYTEY2Xetj7wNNSaaEOZxLbmTkHBbdNK7Vw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent: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 :content-transfer-encoding; b=a0+InhP1p33yBLaZq9qqAEnfMgextdYGIvI6J3eDuVizriv7Pon0BA/aaQQAV+7SiJ +59TCVsClVYWaA//hiDUu0EEblQ4Gmee6FA1vO+FfFe66SsC8z6bhxYXWjgVHL3fqu39 Fc5xLZCgQ1/HOxK0EsbB49RwCrFEPSlE3OeYM= Received: by 10.142.250.2 with SMTP id x2mr104977wfh.30.1290812326438; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:46 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.78.15 with SMTP id a15ls4908986wfb.2.p; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.83.1 with SMTP id g1mr1795813wfb.35.1290812322620; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.83.1 with SMTP id g1mr1795807wfb.35.1290812322393; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n6si2687136wfl.7.2010.11.26.14.58.42; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PM7FZ-0002LA-FK for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:41 -0800 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:58:41 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] NORATS, SPACE, and PUBLIC in PEG grammar Message-ID: <20101126225841.GV9301@digitalkingdom.org> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:50:50PM -0300, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > 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." >=20 > (The question was not addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway:) > The former. Both. There's nothing stopping us from publishing a reference PEG version *and* the code to an actual parser. That's essentially what the BNF and YACC in the CLL now are. > > (Or, as always, secret option #3, ignoring my false dichotomy > > and giving an answer unconstrained by the phrasing of my > > question.) >=20 > 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. I'm inclined to agree, although I note that's a policy reversal; IIRC the yacc currently wins over the BNF. -Robin --=20 http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.