Difference between revisions of "xi'i"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
  
Bla, bla, bla.
+
Supposedly ''xi'i'' is intended to remove ambiguity in multiple subscripts. A summary reference appears at [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/7225]:
  
 +
xi'i (XIhI) terminator for xi; used in mekso to disambiguate e.g. one variable
  
Denne redigeringen er her fordi Robin sa jeg skulle gjøre det.
+
with two subscripts and a variable with a subscript that itself has a subscript.
  
Ja, og han trenger også en ikke-ubetydelig redigering. Beklager spam.
+
''Has this ever confused anybody in practice?''
  
Robin kan ikke lese norsk.
+
No, but an ambiguity in an obscure corner of the language is still an ambiguity and should not exist.
  
----
+
''How is it ambiguity? If you have to subscript that high you're surpassed any listener's ability to follow, and you need to rethink the expression. Am I missing something? What about "boi"?''
  
rlpowell asked me to reroi edit this page.
+
Elidable terminators can't exist in subscripts for technical [[jbocre: YACC|YACC]] reasons.
 +
 
 +
Anyhow, it's not necessary: the syntax for multiple subscripts is ''xi ... ce'o ... ce'o...''.
 +
 
 +
But this ''does'' vaguely jog my memory (saith [[jbocre: John Cowan|John Cowan]]) about some problem with subscripts.  I will try to investigate this.

Revision as of 17:20, 4 November 2013

Supposedly xi'i is intended to remove ambiguity in multiple subscripts. A summary reference appears at [1]:

xi'i (XIhI) terminator for xi; used in mekso to disambiguate e.g. one variable

with two subscripts and a variable with a subscript that itself has a subscript.

Has this ever confused anybody in practice?

No, but an ambiguity in an obscure corner of the language is still an ambiguity and should not exist.

How is it ambiguity? If you have to subscript that high you're surpassed any listener's ability to follow, and you need to rethink the expression. Am I missing something? What about "boi"?

Elidable terminators can't exist in subscripts for technical YACC reasons.

Anyhow, it's not necessary: the syntax for multiple subscripts is xi ... ce'o ... ce'o....

But this does vaguely jog my memory (saith John Cowan) about some problem with subscripts. I will try to investigate this.