[lojban] Re: peg grammar parse tree cmavo

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 11/8/07, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From a layout standpoint, I think it would make more sense to have it
> in the morphology.

I agree, it does make sense.

> But either might have a performance penalty.

This might actually improve performance, because checking whether it
is a cmavo in general has to be more costly than checking whether it is
a particular cmavo.


> "A-pre <- pre-clause A:cmavo spaces?"
>
> "cmavo" there would just be a label that affects the parse tree,
> creating an extra node called "cmavo" that contains "A".
>
> What do you think?

Could you instead have:

"A:cmavo <- &cmavo ( a / e / j i / o / u ) &post-word"

That would seem cleaner than having the label in the A-pre rule.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.