[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: erasure words
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:26:37PM +0100, Zefram wrote:
[I followed the DNS discussion, but I have no useful response]
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >> If a Lojban parser sees a cmavo that it doesn't know, being able to
> >> tell at least whether it is an erase operator would be *very*
> >> helpful.
> >
> >No, it wouldn't. Not in the least. The erase operators are all
> >different selma'o, and are all handled completely independantly.
>
> We're talking at cross-purposes here. The issue is how an
> *unrecognised* cmavo is handled.
I completely understand that. There is no valid way to handle something
when all I know is that it erases *something*.
> What do you do in your parser with, say, "cei'au"? Do you accept "le
> broda cei'au si brode"?
I choke on it. "zo cei'au" is fine, though. jbofihe chokes on both.
The official parser treats all unknown cmavo as UI (which is to say, as
basically irrelevant).
> >How is "lu broda SA_LIKE li'u da" == da better than "lu broda sa lu
> >si da" == da?
>
> That's not the kind of case I had in mind, but it raises some good
> points itself. Consider the thought process behind using "lu": "I'm
> in a "lu" quotation; it ends with "li'u"". During the quotation, when
> thinking about ending the quotation I should be thinking about "li'u",
> not "lu".
Sure, but having just realized that I don't want to be in a lu
quotation at all, I've just changed gears, and am now thinking about
what I'm trying to get rid of, which is "lu".
> Also, this new operator would encourage thinking about the erasure as
> "end the quotation and ignore it", rather than "delete back to the
> beginning of the quotation". I prefer to think forwards, and in terms
> of high-level constructs.
Fair enough, but it will *only* work with lu, and possibly to. It can't
work with lo'u or zoi. It seems silly to put in an eraser for only two
constructs.
> What I really had in mind was things like "le le nanmu ku stizu
> ERASE_CONSTRUCT ku", where I want to skip over a nested construct.
> This example should erase everything, back to and including the first
> "le", rather than only going back to the second "le". High-level
> constructs again.
OK. I can see how that would be useful.
> This was intended as a rather fanciful suggestion; I was more a fan of
> the "erase current sumti" type operators that I suggested and that
> share all of the traits I discussed above. ("le le nanmu ku stizu
> ERASE_SUMTI" *can't* be done with "sa".)
Not with just sa, no, but "sa le si si" will do it in my parser. I
agree that that's a bit bulky, though.
> But I find the generalisation quite neat. I think it's at least a
> useful thought experiment in the realm of grammar-aware erase
> operators.
<nod>
> You seem to be hostile to new erase operators because of the
> complexity of implementation. Is that the case?
Not at all. The implementation *is* complex, but that's not the point.
I'm hostile to new erase operators because they are new; nothing more or
less. Despite all of this discussion, the language is *not* actually
open for change. The reasons I'm bothering are described at
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/
> Perhaps further discussion should occur when, and if, I produce a
> parser that implements erasure more modularly.
See my other post. I'm totally cool with you doing grammar work, but:
1. I'm already doing it, so I'm not sure what the point is, although I
would *love* someone to look over my PEG grammar.
and
2. I honestly don't think that you understand how hard a problem Lojban
grammar is to implement.
WRT point #2: John Cowan, please accept my apology; you were right.
(John said the same thing to me when I started worknig on this).
-Robin
--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi