Subject: Re: [lojban] LALR1 question

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:10:53 -0400 (EDT)

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