For non-BPFK discussion of the formal grammar, see Grammar.
This section describes a proposed update to the Formal Grammar, defining the grammar in PEG rather than YACC. This section requires cleanup and a shepherd.
Trailing empty tags within a bridi-head forethought termset aren't absorbed into the following selbri as selbri tcita in Jbofi'e's output, while Camxes-pegjs seems to parse it correctly. Concrete example: nu'i ge do gi mi pu klama parses as { nu'i ge do gi mi pu KU NU'U CU klama VAU } in Jbofi'e, whereas it parses as { nu'i ge do NUhU gi mi NUhU CU pu klama VAU } in Camxes-pegjs.
CLL 9.9, example 9.8: mi bai ke ge klama le zarci gi cadzu le bisli. Camxes' PEG sees this like mi bai ku ke ge klama le zarci gi cadzu le bisli. There doesn't appear to be a way to fill the tag in the gek-sentence production. Jbofihe and the official parser both get this right. Also relevant is example 18.15 from CLL 14.18: mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja. Jbofihe and the official parser both fail on this. Camxes sees it as mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja. Is this what is intended?
Good catch. I think what camxes does is the Right Thingâ„¢, and that the unreachable tag should just be eliminated from the grammar. mi'e xorxes
The grammar has a difference between “operand†and “number†that probably isn't intentional; because of this, constructs like “mo'e zo'e†cannot be used where other numbers are allowed.