From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCviafpBBoEPi83Fw@googlegroups.com Sun Jan 09 06:22:57 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PbwAY-000722-GA; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:57 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf20695414wwb.16 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:44 -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=K3VweiZLuO5PjNsGhuNjrLo58xZxf6XTSB67RCXsmg8=; b=zg2h+KfmJzyYV+HYbmLGvVaHrnWPM64g+DzZ5CjCdMlqdaWoTt6qPJzTbfnvD6dy4I b4ItZvLV8DAjum0S1iBEkXQ9v0v/NHz9xSY155zkvmsu7FbwDkOd87sdBln/vWK70tAj iSkz9yLsB6sXJyp+E8855jzH933TzAopHVmEc= 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=KSnOioNsM/5GWpm37x6Fkojv4h6fC6fjN+0M7X1GpLM1ENljzJSOJl8qjX1vO08s7H coDamFAhdfVII+7m1xMFCG0LfkVE+kjx9kXwmMy8zuVmovDjFx8ABInWJnp59nZXe9J+ tzCoQNs6ctfgll/8+Ov9t4LTeafR7w+UKx8kk= Received: by 10.216.82.66 with SMTP id n44mr174564wee.2.1294582959979; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:39 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.226.148 with SMTP id b20ls10384286weq.0.p; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.165.15 with SMTP id d15mr1643267wel.2.1294582958899; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.165.15 with SMTP id d15mr1643266wel.2.1294582958886; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com (mail-wy0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id h6si2288748wes.11.2011.01.09.06.22.37; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; Received: by mail-wy0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 22so18250867wyf.8 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.198.198 with SMTP id ep6mr1699320wbb.202.1294582938060; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.54.72 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 06:22:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> <673286.9022.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <294930.94884.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <401176.86876.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 11:22:17 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream? (was: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language)) 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 74.125.82.177 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 Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > > That reminds me, actually; why does the grammar refuse: > LE SELBRI JOI LE SELBRI The PEG grammar has no problem with it. > ? Why can't JOI realize "left side is sumti, right side is sumti, so ku is > implied on left side"? Does the grammar not have enough lookahead, or > something? The official grammar is supposed to have only one token lookahead. In fact that's not true, because the preparser used by the official parser still needs infinite lookahead. For example, if you get a PA, you have no way of knowing whether you are getting a sumti or a selbri or a free modifier until you reach the end of the string of PAs, and there's no limit to how many PA's you could get. So PA strings were handled by the preparser instead of by the parser proper. (And similarly for some other stuff.) The lexer also needs infinite lookahead. For example, you don't know that you are getting a cmevla until you get a consonant followed by a pause, and that could take any number of tokens of lookahead. So Lojban is not and never was LALR(1). 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.