Huh? They seem perfectly sensical to me (in English, yes).
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > I judge CFJs 3180 and 3181 technically MALFORMED, as the sequence of > characters given as the CFJ "statement" can't be parsed as a statement, > being nonsensical when interpreted as English and not meaningful in > other natural languages I know. > > In spirit, they're FALSE; the lexing of the ambiguous statement where > Mr. Incredible was doing that doesn't make sense. In general, if there's > two different reasonable ways to tokenise a statement, the presumption > is that it's intended to tokenise via the method that parses correctly. > > -- > ais523 >
