RE: [lojban] LALR1 question

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

How does the role of the preparser square with Lojban's nonambiguity
and LALR1ness? Is the claim: "Lojban grammar is unambiguous and
LALR1-parsable, because all bits that aren't unambiguous and
LALR1-parsable aren't counted as grammar"?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Curnow [mailto:richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com]
> Sent: 29 August 2001 21:46
> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lojban] LALR1 question
>
>
> I don't think the joi-overloading between selbri and sumti is the worst
> problem by any means.  The most problematic case I came across when
> doing the pre-parser in jbofi'e was the constructions like
>
> I JA optional-simple-tense BO
> I JA optional-simple-tense KE
> I JA optional-simple-tense something-else
>
> where the decision to reduce or not depends on whether bo, ke or
> something else comes at the end of a tense which has potentially
> arbitrary length.  So in this case no value of k is high enough for
> LR(k) to be up to the job.
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 02:40:50AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 05:29:11PM -0600, Jay Kominek wrote:
> > > My conclusion: If you want the language to be syntactically unambiguous,
> > > LALR(1) is a fairly good choice. The most you'd want to do is switch to an
> > > LR(2) parser. If you need more than that, you're doing something wrong.
> >
> > Actually, now I'm wondering - would changing the language to LR(2) actually
> > help? What if you change {le broda joi le brode} to {le broda ui
> joi le brode}
> > - would that not parse in LR(2), or does UI somehow not count in the
> > lookahead? Am I looking at this all wrong?
>
> --
> R.P.Curnow,Weston-super-Mare,UK  | C++: n., An octopus made by
> http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ |  nailing extra legs on a cat.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>