[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
la veion. cusku di'e
> ERROR: the YACC modification I previously sent works at the YACC
> level but isn't feasible in practice as the modification
> ended up on the lexer side - I'm not yet sure whether it
> can be done on the parser side, probably not without a
> major modification.
Regrettably, it can't. Whatever is done in the preparser rules (900-end)
can't refer to things in the earlier rules, on pain of implementing the
entire parser within the preparser. So "NOI sentence" within a tense is
impossible, even though it YACCs, it doesn't fit the schema of the
parser, which is to keep the compounded forms simple. Of these, tense
(lexer_O) is already the worst offender, and further complications are
truly intolerable.
I am still thinking about the other possibilities. I weakly favor
messing with "ve'i <sumti>", although I recognize the annoying doubled
semantics of the i/a/u vowel plus what the sumti actually says.
la veion. cusku di'e
> ERROR: the YACC modification I previously sent works at the YACC
> level but isn't feasible in practice as the modification
> ended up on the lexer side - I'm not yet sure whether it
> can be done on the parser side, probably not without a
> major modification.
Regrettably, it can't. Whatever is done in the preparser rules (900-end)
can't refer to things in the earlier rules, on pain of implementing the
entire parser within the preparser. So "NOI sentence" within a tense is
impossible, even though it YACCs, it doesn't fit the schema of the
parser, which is to keep the compounded forms simple. Of these, tense
(lexer_O) is already the worst offender, and further complications are
truly intolerable.
I am still thinking about the other possibilities. I weakly favor
messing with "ve'i <sumti>", although I recognize the annoying doubled
semantics of the i/a/u vowel plus what the sumti actually says.