Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> If we formally codify the informal rules of Lojban pragmatics, then those
> rules become part of the formal grammar.

Indeed. It's never going to happen, but if it happened, that would
trivially follow.

> As far as I am concerned "the parser" refers to the entire "black box"
> program that takes input and produces a parse.

OK. I was talking about just the transparent formal grammar part. I
don't really care much for black boxes.

> Any "pre-parser" and indeed
> if relevant, "lexer" are just pieces of what I consider the "Lojban parser".

OK. I don't. I will try not to say "parser" and say "Lojban formal
grammar" to avoid confusion.

>  You seem to be trying to treat different parts of a formal system as
> different and unrelated systems.  This makes little sense to me.

The Lojban formal grammar is (or "can be", depending on your attitude
to the PEG grammar) well defined. The particular parser
implementations of that grammar are not unique, there are all sorts of
different things you may want to do with an implementation, and there
is really no reason to pick one implementation over another. Different
uses will make use of different implementations, all based on the same
grammar.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.