[lojban] Official parser bug: li revo .a li pare

[Robin Lee Powell]

The official parser does not appear to accept eks, of any form, between
'li' sumti:

li revo .a li pare
Last good construct was: quantifier_300

This includes 'ji'. I don't have the time now to investigate why.

Adding 'ku' did not help, nor did boi.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rocki morsi

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 07:49:53AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 07:04 PM 4/6/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:48:39PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > The official parser does not appear to accept eks, of any form,
> > > between 'li' sumti:
> > >
> > > li revo .a li pare
> > > Last good construct was: quantifier_300
> > >
> > > This includes 'ji'. I don't have the time now to investigate why.
> > >
> > > Adding 'ku' did not help, nor did boi.
> >

> >But "li revo lo'o .a li pare" works. jbofihe doesn't seem to need
> >it, though.
>
> It should, I think.
> With "li revo .a li pare", it appears like it should take LR(2) to
> look past the .a to see the "li", and know that we aren't trying "li
> revo .a pare"

Sure, except that the elidable terminators aren't LR(1), or LR(inf) for
that matter.

It's probably just a matter of having a slightly smarter elidable
terminator insert in jbofihe's case, because it *is* inserting lo'o
there.

My parser works utterly differently, of course.

[Bob LeChevalier]

At 07:04 PM 4/6/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:48:39PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > The official parser does not appear to accept eks, of any form,
> > between 'li' sumti:
> >
> > li revo .a li pare
> > Last good construct was: quantifier_300
> >
> > This includes 'ji'. I don't have the time now to investigate why.
> >
> > Adding 'ku' did not help, nor did boi.
>

>But "li revo lo'o .a li pare" works. jbofihe doesn't seem to need it,
>though.

It should, I think.
With "li revo .a li pare", it appears like it should take LR(2) to look
past the .a to see the "li", and know that we aren't trying "li revo .a pare"

lojbab

--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lojban-un...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:48:39PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> The official parser does not appear to accept eks, of any form,
> between 'li' sumti:
>
> li revo .a li pare
> Last good construct was: quantifier_300
>
> This includes 'ji'. I don't have the time now to investigate why.
>
> Adding 'ku' did not help, nor did boi.

But "li revo lo'o .a li pare" works. jbofihe doesn't seem to need it,
though.

-Robin