From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jul 14 18:17:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 15 Jul 2001 01:17:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 72004 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2001 01:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jul 2001 01:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2001 01:17:00 -0000 Received: from m676-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.42.164] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15LaHq-0000XB-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:01:30 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] the formal grammars' utility Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:16:11 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010714124253.00b6c2b0@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Lojbab: > 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. Am I mistaken in thinking that the EBNF in the book contains less info than the YACC? For instance, trying to answer my own question of earlier today about DOI, I find that "vocative415 = (COI [NAI])...& DOI", but find nothing about the expansion of DOI, whereas I do find this info under vocative_35 and DOI_415 in YACC. > >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. No, the index lists for each phrase the phrases it occurs within, but it doesn't tell us whereabouts in the YACC grammar text itself the rule can be found; one has to flick through the pages hunting fairly randomly. > >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. I thought I understood EBNF, but as I said above I don't grock how it is unabbreviated. --And.