Re: [bpfk] Can we drop the fore tanru cmavo?

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> i.e., can PEG support having one set of fore logical connectives only,
> or is the issue deeper than lookahead?

In principle it is only lookahead, but I'd be reluctant to mess with this
because of human limitations -- PEG grammars can look ahead arbitrarily
far, but humans cannot.  When you hear GA after a selbri, you know
that the selbri is complete; when you hear GUhA, you know there is more
selbri to come.  I think that's a valuable property that shouldn't be
discarded lightly.

This is why I have been reluctant to use the PEG grammar as a basis for
grammar changes.  The YACC grammar is over-constraining and makes some
elidable terminators necessary (the notorious le broda ku joi le brodo)
that wouldn't actually confuse anyone.  But OTOH it doesn't permit things
to be grammatical that no human could decipher.  We need a happy medium.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      cowan@ccil.org
      That thou wast born with.

-- 
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.