[lojban] Re: Annotated PEG grammar

["Chris Capel" <pdf23ds@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 13:38, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> bridi-tail-1 <- bridi-tail-1 gihek !(tag? BO) !(tag? KE) free* bridi-tail-2 tail-terms / bridi-tail-2
>>>
>>> This production parses undecorated giheks. To ensure that no BO or KE are used, the lookahead symbol is used.
>
> Neither a free* nor a bridi-tail-2 can start with (tag? BO), so that
> restriction is doing nothing.

I think it is, because bridi-tail-2 requires a BO in its gihek clause.
So bridi-tail-1 will fail because of this lookahead if there's a BO
there, and will get matched by bridi-tail-2. OTOH, it might work just
fine without the !BO, because nothing in "free" parses BO, right? Or
could it?

> And the !(tag? KE) seems wrong there. Why is "broda gi'e ke ge brode
> gi brodi" disallowed, while "broda gi'e xi pa ke ge brode gi brodi"
> allowed by this rule?

Is it disallowed? It seems to me your second example would still parse
passing through bridi-tail-1 and matching the second alternative of
gek-sentence. In which case the only question is whether the !KE is
superfluous.

Chris Capel
-- 
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)


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.