From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Tue May 08 14:47:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 8 May 2001 21:47:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 57993 invoked from network); 8 May 2001 21:29:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 May 2001 21:29:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scrabble.freeuk.net) (212.126.144.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2001 21:29:39 -0000 Received: from du-008-0190.freeuk.com ([212.126.151.190] helo=rrbcurnow.freeuk.com) by scrabble.freeuk.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14xF32-0003CZ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 08 May 2001 22:29:37 +0100 Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 14xF0r-00003r-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 8 May 2001 22:27:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:27:21 +0100 To: Lojban List Subject: Parsing "na ku" and "na" followed by other things Message-ID: <20010508222721.C138@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mail-Followup-To: Lojban List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp From: Richard Curnow I've had a bug report for jbofi'e which identifies an incompatibility with the 'official' parser. This seems to be the version that targets v2.33 of the Lojban grammar. [I am not aware of any publically visible source code for an 'official' parser for v3.00 of the grammar.] The example is i mi djica le nu le nu pensi na zekri which parses on the 'official' parser, but not on jbofi'e. The problem has, I think, been discussed at least once on this list - it's that the word "na" is shifted as though "na ku" is coming, rather than the bridi "pensi" being reduced first. I've looked into how the official parser handles this, and it looks like there's some special logic to recognize "na ku" as a special case, as though it's a single token (hence the LALR(1) mechanism in the parser doesn't get confused and shift "na" wrongly. Hence "na" followed by something else would cause the bridi "pensi" to be reduced in the example.) Is this handling of "na ku" considered current behaviour for the v3.00 Lojban grammar? I'm asking because the official parser's behaviour for this case was never discussed when the "na ku" issue was discussed on the list before. I want to go ahead and fix jbofi'e for this case, but obviously only if detecting "na ku" as though it's a single token is still considered correct behaviour in grammar v3.00. -- Richard P. Curnow, Weston-super-Mare, UK http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ email:richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com email:rpc@myself.com