From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Aug 27 23:41:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 06:41:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 97848 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 06:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 06:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 06:41:12 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-58.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.58]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24856 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:41:11 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15bcYN-0000GD-00 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:40:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:40:50 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] LALR1 question Message-ID: <20010828024050.A941@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer 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? -- Rob Speer