Re: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)

[Lionel Vidal <nessus@free.fr>]

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > > Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}? Is anybody going to remember that
> > > you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? (Or rather that it will parse as {pu
> > > ku na'e ka'e}.) 
> > >      
> > For the same reason you can't say "pu bai klama": LALR(1). 
> >    
>
> Ok, if that is the case, that would be a good, justified answer.
> I admit I can't always tell why something makes LALR(1) fail, as
> in this case. I don't understand why {pu na'e ka'e} would be
> problematic.
>  
Is there any requirement for the grammar to be LALR(1)?  I don't think 
so and it would
be rather pointless, because as it stands now, the grammar is not 
globally LALR(1)
as rightly stated in step 5 of yacc preliminaries in CLL.  So IMO, this 
is not a good,
justified answer :-)
More generally, I don't think that lojban should ever be limited in any 
way just because
we happen to use a given computing related tool (and in that case IMO a 
rather old and
limited one).  

Best wishes,
Lionel