Subject: Re: [lojban] the formal grammars' utility

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:46:59 -0400

At 04:40 PM 07/14/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>1. What use is the EBNF grammar, given that it can't be used instead of
>YACC?

Some people find it easier to understand than the YACC grammar because the 
rules are compressed into a more language-grammar-like form.

>2. Is there a downloadable version of YACC ordered alphabetically (or
>in any way such that one knows whereabouts in the rule list to find the
>expansion for a given node)?

The YACC grammar in the Book has an index that provides this.

>3. Has anybody created a more succinct but unabbreviated (and, ideally,
>more intuitive) version of the YACC grammar?

You just said why people use the EBNF. If the YACC grammar could be more 
succinct, we would. The EBNF covers the whole language, so it is more 
succinct and unabbreviated. Its weakness is that it is not proven 
equivalent to the YACC, so mistakes in obscure places could still surface.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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