[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: ca'a pu (was: Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?)



At 10:55 PM 11/16/01 +0000, Richard Curnow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:33:06AM -0700, Jay Kominek wrote:
Obviously {mi pu ca'a broda} does work.  So the key difference is that
'pu' cannot follow 'ca'a' within a single time construction.

I've investigated why jbofi'e doesn't reduce ca'a to a standalone term
(inferring 'ku') when 'pu' is the lookahead token.  Essentially, it's
because it thinks it's starting to see something like

  mi ca'a pu gi le nanmu gi le ninmu cu broda

(whatever that might mean), i.e. it's expecting to see 'gi' after pu to
make everything work out OK. This expression parses OK on the official
v2.33 parser.  (I don't actually have the official v3 parser running yet
- I've never got round to sorting the build out.)

I need to away and think quite hard about this problem.  The full extent
of the bug is not yet clear to me - I presume I'm missing one of the
pre-parser stages that the official parser has.

ca'a pu should never be acceptable even before a gi. It has to have the ku (or have it inferred by YACCs error processing.

simple tag + GI is a lexer_G construction, and the simple tag cannot include the ca'a. It should know before it leaves preparsing whether the PU is or is not part of a lexer_G.

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org