From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 29 11:51:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 29 Apr 2003 18:51:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 53137 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 18:51:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2003 18:51:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 18:51:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AaCn-0002EQ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:53 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AaCT-0002DS-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:33 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.25] helo=mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AaC7-0002Bo-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:51:11 -0700 Received: from free.fr (AMontpellier-104-1-14-43.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.253.223.43]) by mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8405134000AC for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:50:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3EAEC956.6040302@free.fr> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:49:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) References: <20030429163929.62063.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030429163929.62063.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-archive-position: 5019 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Lionel Vidal From: Lionel Vidal Reply-To: nessus@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out Jorge Llambías wrote: >>>Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}? Is anybody going to remember that >>>you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? (Or rather that it will parse as {pu >>>ku na'e ka'e}.) >>> >>> >>For the same reason you can't say "pu bai klama": LALR(1). >> >> > >Ok, if that is the case, that would be a good, justified answer. >I admit I can't always tell why something makes LALR(1) fail, as >in this case. I don't understand why {pu na'e ka'e} would be >problematic. > > Is there any requirement for the grammar to be LALR(1)? I don't think so and it would be rather pointless, because as it stands now, the grammar is not globally LALR(1) as rightly stated in step 5 of yacc preliminaries in CLL. So IMO, this is not a good, justified answer :-) More generally, I don't think that lojban should ever be limited in any way just because we happen to use a given computing related tool (and in that case IMO a rather old and limited one). Best wishes, Lionel