From lojban@lojban.org Tue May 08 20:14:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 9 May 2001 03:14:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 45601 invoked from network); 9 May 2001 03:13:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 May 2001 03:13:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 May 2001 03:13:44 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic213.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.213]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f493Dg658445 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010508231409.00cab470@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1035/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:16:10 -0400 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: [lojban] Parsing "na ku" and "na" followed by other things In-Reply-To: <20010508222721.C138@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Logical Language Group At 10:27 PM 05/08/2001 +0100, Richard Curnow wrote: >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. Per step 5 in the algorithm stated in the front of grammar.300, all lexer lexemes must be inserted before submitting the text to YACC parsing or LALR1 will fail. NA+KU must be tagged by lexer_J per rule 950. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org