From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Jul 14 10:55:09 2001
Return-Path: <lojbab@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 14 Jul 2001 17:55:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 5152 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2001 17:55:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jul 2001 17:55:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailman1.cais.net) (205.252.14.61) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jul 2001 17:55:07 -0000
Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by mailman1.cais.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f6EGkNv52805 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:46:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic236.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.236]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6EGgpY90884 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010714124253.00b6c2b0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:46:59 -0400
To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the formal grammars' utility
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEMBEGAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>

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 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


