From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Aug 27 16:11:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 23:11:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 63288 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 23:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 23:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 23:11:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7RNArf26827 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:10:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] LALR1 question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jay Kominek wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Robert McIvor wrote: > > > I have always been led to believe that LALR(1) parsers are the maximum > > that can be conclusively proved to be unambiguous, which is why TLI > > Loglan > > grammar was based on YACC (and incidentally, Robin, has no shift-reduce > > conflicts) > > LR(k) and LL(k) (for all k) grammars are also unambiguous. How hard would it be to create an LALR(5) Lojban, and how different would it be to speak? ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950