Number subgrammar
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:03:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Rob:
> > Okay. So should we learn to say times like: lijo'i pamu boi cize cu
> > ca tcika instead of: li pamu pi'e cize ca tcika ?
> >
> > (And why in the world does jbofi'e require {cu} there?)
>
> Because {ca} could be the beginning of a third operand for jo'i: {ca
> gi pa gi re}.
That's a valid mex argument? Apparently. Ick.
> Presumably Robin's parser can do without {cu} there.
Indeed.
> > If pi'e cannot be a tuple, then times and dates would need to use
> > jo'i.
>
> CLL says that the base of each digit can be "vague", so times where
> the digits after the decimal point are decimal seconds, and even dates
> might still qualify, stretching the sense of base a bit. But we
> couldn't use pi'e fore tuples of signed numbers, fractions or complex
> numbers.
Which was why I said that you only need to use jo'i if you actually need
pi internal to the number.
-Robin