Em sexta-feira, 17 de abril de 2020 18:41:05 UTC+3, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org escreveu:
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Transformation doesn't necessarily imply equivalence.
>>
>> No, but it would render the PEG in a form which could be *compared* to
>> the YACC. If you cut-out the morphology rules,
>
>
> You need to cut out much more. Compare how many lines the BNF grammar has.
> One can learn it by heart. Now compare to camxes grammars.
Did you read what I wrote? I'm not talking about MEMORIZING the
grammar. I'm proposing comparison of the formal grammar rules (however
many thousands of lines they may be) derived from the YACC and PEG,
respectively, to see if they parse equivalent languages. That would
prove the equivalence of the PEG to the YACC.
camxes contains morphology, chapter 21 of the CLL doesnt. camxes has multiple rules from BPFK (like handling magic words), chapter 21 doesn't.
If you mean replacing priority choice operator with alternation then camxes becomes ambiguous ( more than one parse tree for almost any worthwhile sentence).
> Because PEG formalism doesn't allow checking for ambiguities. E.g. PEG is
> unambiguous even if you add to it rules and subrules that would never
> match.
>
> But seriously PEG/CFG are not powerful enough even by BPFK standards (see
> BPFK pages in the wiki)
None of what you have writen here makes any sense to me. What do you
mean?
PEG is not the perfect parser by bpfk standards. Scope of da/BAI/bridi is not handled, fuhe is not handled. By CLL standards internal grammar of UI is not handled.