From lojban+bncCLr6ktCfBBDQ0LHpBBoEx0ClSQ@googlegroups.com Tue Jan 11 06:25:42 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PcfAB-0006yA-KR; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:42 -0800 Received: by yia27 with SMTP id 27sf14107481yia.16 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:25 -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:received:received:date:from:to :subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:mime-version: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=Mp2uG7SUP0uO/uxQ5q6LlYxUMOm7CKHuqui2MH9HmUs=; b=ZEyrwOD/I89jX6p9QBqaWFOROndqfPeH+tBgh6SErArnt1IxEIHtpiBTDNh5CyaujU SZIpckfAfMVXppSvAVjTYH0bob5RQKCaPS3+qHCgFTPqgPh2Cc7MWtuGrn+/drHfncog RzaZr7dpl/FHqMoqWfSXhxkDsZOQdk6cHbgzg= 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:mime-version: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=lHj4fuwS/3HV4Dd6gC1BFt6/SC2G3neZNK2s7vL+4VCkMDhvtWI9bI6FNTLAqgh12e BuWv7HM87TVfW2jA3s+FJe0zDE9Mr9T0+F8YfvCjvRQXjJJanPt5HEPX0RzK7SkRL/dy dtRH0fHt7PQ+o4T+AjCilKITe21rMxwdWywtQ= Received: by 10.147.170.4 with SMTP id x4mr2147820yao.9.1294755920998; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:20 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.57.97 with SMTP id b33ls1847883ibh.0.p; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.34.6 with SMTP id j6mr11965704ibd.10.1294755919940; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.34.6 with SMTP id j6mr11965703ibd.10.1294755919828; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com (mail-iw0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j25si6916691ibb.4.2011.01.11.06.25.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.214.173 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=209.85.214.173; Received: by mail-iw0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 40so21311784iwn.18 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.174.138 with SMTP id v10mr5774842icz.91.1294755919655; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (197.sub-75-211-132.myvzw.com [75.211.132.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u5sm4600210ics.6.2011.01.11.06.25.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:25:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:25:12 -0700 From: ".alyn.post." To: Lojban List Subject: [lojban] vocative production in PEG grammar Message-ID: <20110111142512.GA38433@197.sub-75-211-132.myvzw.com> Mail-Followup-To: Lojban List Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.214.173 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 The PEG grammar has the following production: vocative <- ( COI-clause NAI-clause? )+ DOI-clause / ( COI-clause NAI-clause? ) ( COI-clause NAI-clause? )* / DOI-clause Which is a bit curious to me. It *seems* like it could be rewritten as: vocative <- ( COI-clause NAI-clause? )* DOI-clause? The only difference I can see between these two cases are that the second form will match the empty string, whereas the first will not. It looks like that is a problem for one of the ordered choices in the 'free' production. (I'm not sure if that can be addressed yet.) If vocative is written this way so that it does not match the empty string, why isn't it written this way?: vocative <- ( COI-clause NAI-clause? )+ DOI-clause / ( COI-clause NAI-clause? )+ / DOI-clause Where the second ordered choice uses the + operator instead of FOO FOO*? -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.