Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

> Date:         Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:58:51 -0300
> From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
> Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

>>CHANGE 46
>...
>>The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK
>>terms NUhU",

> Is NUhI really necessary? Couldn't it be just "GEK terms /NUhU/ GIK
> terms /NUhU/"? That would make it much more in tune with the
> general use of geks.

   This would work at the yacc level

> (Even better if the first NUhU could be avoided.)

   1 shift/reduce conflict

> I supppose that there must be some yacc problem with that, but
> I don't see why. If "ge sumti gi sumti" is ok, why would "ge sumti sumti
> gi sumti sumti" cause any problems?

   15 shift/reduce + 15 reduce/reduce conflicts

  The shift/reduce come from the "ge sumti sumti" part and the reduce/
  reduce conflicts from the "gi sumti sumti" part. The last one is
  quite obvious as there is no way to discriminate between, e.g.

      [ge sumti sumti gi sumti   sumti] [sumti]     and
      [ge sumti sumti gi sumti] [sumti] [sumti]


  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------