[lojban] Re: Annotated PEG grammar

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

But it can never _start_ with "tag? BO", which is all !(tag? BO) cares about.

>> 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?

As a "bridi-tail-1", it's disallowed. (It's allowed as a "bridi-tail".)

> It seems to me your second example would still parse
> passing through bridi-tail-1 and matching the second alternative of
> gek-sentence.

"broda gi'e ke ge brode gi brodi" will match bridi-tail (but not bridi-tail-1)

"broda gi'e xi pa ke ge brode gi brodi", OTOH, will match bridi-tail-1.

That's inconsistent.

> In which case the only question is whether the !KE is
> superfluous.

I suspect it's simply wrong, in order to get the right precedences.
But in an case, if it belongs there at all, it must go after free*,
not before.

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.