Re: Syntactic unambiguity
Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.linguistics.lojban.jboske |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, John Cowan wrote: > > How is it that we know that Lojban is syntactically unambiguous? > > YACC complains about ambiguities, though it will still cope with them. > The Lojban grammar reports zero conflicts, so it is unambiguous, > EXCEPT for the various hacks put in Do we know what these hacks are? > to keep YACC from spotting places where 1-token lookahead isn't enough. I was of the belief that iff YACC is a LALR(1) parser, then it can't cope with more than 1-token lookahead. Why are we writing rules for it that requires more than 1-token lookahead? > Ambiguities can lurk there, and have to be searched for by hand. That is very disturbing. I hope those hacks are only a few, so that we can have a hope of *proving* the grammar to be unambigous. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengevæter. Forutsatt at ingen på basen på Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen