From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 30 18:36:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 98499 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:40 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.56]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010831013637.FNCZ15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:36:37 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] LALR1 question Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:45:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010829214543.A9524@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" How does the role of the preparser square with Lojban's nonambiguity and LALR1ness? Is the claim: "Lojban grammar is unambiguous and LALR1-parsable, because all bits that aren't unambiguous and LALR1-parsable aren't counted as grammar"? > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Curnow [mailto:richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com] > Sent: 29 August 2001 21:46 > To: lojban@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [lojban] LALR1 question > > > I don't think the joi-overloading between selbri and sumti is the worst > problem by any means. The most problematic case I came across when > doing the pre-parser in jbofi'e was the constructions like > > I JA optional-simple-tense BO > I JA optional-simple-tense KE > I JA optional-simple-tense something-else > > where the decision to reduce or not depends on whether bo, ke or > something else comes at the end of a tense which has potentially > arbitrary length. So in this case no value of k is high enough for > LR(k) to be up to the job. > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 02:40:50AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > > 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? > > -- > R.P.Curnow,Weston-super-Mare,UK | C++: n., An octopus made by > http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ | nailing extra legs on a cat. > > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >