From lojban+bncCLr6ktCfBBC5-uDyBBoEfVoioA@googlegroups.com Fri Aug 26 17:41:41 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qx6xt-000135-V5; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:41 -0700 Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6sf6082578ywa.16 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=67yakUL2W8XGtgSBCJZgUR1yZdsFNGg54Gb//zBum40=; b=owQ4nbHawzjaatD51gETctVJJVIa8yW6paf0OrRS7FMSQlfAAIy4Xg7NBCaR0E+3aP J+0Og7acQbXsWJpfNl1RKN0EkRXFDurZAok9xp/81x0MxDBRq3cnvxVCJlb/FPGmQnEZ iAKpsSFgzf4HqOYABNOTrt+aX4D3TDPxU0L9g= Received: by 10.151.77.37 with SMTP id e37mr453756ybl.34.1314405689890; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.73.132 with SMTP id q4ls1664828ibj.0.gmail; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.134.65 with SMTP id ib1mr2118542icc.0.1314405689102; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.134.65 with SMTP id ib1mr2118541icc.0.1314405689091; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (mail-iy0-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gz12si1198051icb.2.2011.08.26.17.41.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.210.169 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=209.85.210.169; Received: by iagv1 with SMTP id v1so58146iag.28 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.57.10 with SMTP id a10mr3464018ibh.70.1314405687815; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-76-113-7-111.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [76.113.7.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j9sm1069923ibl.18.2011.08.26.17.41.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:41:22 -0600 From: ".alyn.post." To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Magic Words work-in-progress repository Message-ID: <20110827004122.GA20985@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: <20110826194826.GB18532@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: 209.85.210.169 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 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 Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:42:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:48 PM, .alyn.post. > wrote: > > I'm working on implementing Lojban's Magic Words in PEG, as part > > of formalizing the PEG grammar for Lojban. =A0Based on a conversation > > on IRC today, I have uploaded my work-in-progress: > > > > =A0https://github.com/alanpost/magic-words >=20 > ;;; vajni porsi - Magic words are processed in order of precedence, > ;;; or vajni porsi. This precedence determines which > ;;; magic word is used to create a jufpau valsi. >=20 > What's the advantage of having complex precedence rules over the > simple and without exceptions "first come first served" rule? It seems > to me that what you are proposing is a step backwards. >=20 > I see that you are also reverting to the old "SA + selma'o" rule, > which means that 80% of the grammar has to be devoted to SA handling. >=20 > mu'o mi'e xorxes >=20 This case convinced me that we needed precedence rules: broda bu zei brode bu Under strict LTR, that is: (bu-clause (zei-clause (bu-clause (gismu-clause "broda") "bu") "zei" (gismu-clause "brode")) "bu") Which makes me uncomfortable because bu's scope changes depending on whether it is on the left or right hand side of zei. I propose this parse tree instead: (zei-clause (bu-clause (gismu-clause "broda") "bu") "zei" (bu-clause (gismu-clause "brode") "bu")) With the principle being that if ZEI matches something on the left, the same rule is used to match the right. That, however, requires a precedence table. The *essential* property of LTR is preserved in this magic words work, but I think the above case demonstrates that LTR doesn't make sense in every case: that more complex rules result in easier to understand and parse (by humans) texts. I think your term "complex precedence rules" does not accurately reflect the ground truth of the above code. Admitting a precedence table simplifies the number of cases in the parse, per my example above. I caution you against reading comments; they have the least amount of truth in the above code. I wrote them before implementing many of the grammar rules, and have not yet corrected some breathtakingly incorrect statements in them. I would also like to improve the quality of any discussion around Magic Words, for which many years, many viewpoints, and many words have been spent debating. I don't have the skill or desire to exceed the debaters who have come before me. It is my hope, in preparing this code, that I can change the nature of that debate from discussing individual cases and ideas around Magic Words to "there is a bug on line 100, here is a patch, and here is the list of test cases that changed and as well the justification for why those changes are valid." I believe that it is too easy, in discussing this topic, to focus on what we want out of a single case without realizing the repercussions that has for the remaining body of this work. This code is not ready to support that level of debate; it is still a work in progress. It will be, when it is complete, all I have to say on the topic--I will expect at that point to discuss this problem with patches, rather than prose. Please accept this reply, then, an apology for not being ready to answer your concerns. I deeply value and am grateful for your experience, perspective, and work you've put into this topic. Please accept this reply as a demonstration of the respect I have for the time and energy you're spent on this topic. I hope that I am able to deliver a working grammar from which I will graciously receive from you any improvements that you would care to offer. .i mu'o mi'e .alyn. --=20 .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du --=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.