la latro'a cu cusku di'e
Today we found that you can't use MEX with ROI, MOI, or MAI, even in the
PEG. camxes treats a closed MEX (e.g. {vei mo'e ko'a [te'u ve'o]} as a
"quantifier", distinct from PA* (i.e. PA* = PA | PA PA*), which it calls
a "number". With MOI we have the YACC-friendly hack "ME LI MEX MOI",
which still cooperates with the PEG, but as best I can tell there is no
such hack for ROI and MAI.
Would anything go wrong if MEX ROI, MEX MOI, and MEX MAI were made
allowed in the PEG?
It goes beyond LALR(1), but that's about it as far as I can tell. It's not a problem in a PEG. See this mekso proposal by xorxes, which I strongly support:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/MEX+grammar+proposalThis would allow any MEX where you can use a quantifier right now. It would also remove the need for {vei ... ve'o} brackets, something I always found unnatural.
> If not, can we get this into camxes?Hehe, I'm not sure camxes can just be changed to incorporate unofficial changes. Someone would have to make it official first (*hint*).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.