From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Apr 11 11:30:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 11 Apr 2003 18:30:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 49329 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2003 18:30:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2003 18:30:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2003 18:30:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1943Id-0000E6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:30:55 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1943IW-0000Dn-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:30:48 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1943I7-0000DX-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:30:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:30:18 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: odd parse Message-ID: <20030411183018.GC28185@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200304111424.31449.phma@webjockey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200304111424.31449.phma@webjockey.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 4752 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 02:24:31PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > I made a variant of a previous tonguetwister, {la bab noi babzba > ba zbasu lo jbazbabu lo babjba}, and ran it through jbofi'e. I > expected it to throw it out because of the missing terminator, but > it apparently parsed it as {la bab., noi babzba ba, zbasu lo > jbazbabu lo babjba}. Is that correct? I would have expected {la bab., noi babzba, ba zbasu lo jbazbabu lo babjba}, but then LALR(1) can't do that. Certainly the terminator isn't needed, though; once the brivla of the noi clause has been seen, what can come next is very limited. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi