|EBNF email@example.com (2004-11-20)|
|Re: EBNF firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-28)|
|Re: EBNF email@example.com (Martin Bravenboer) (2004-11-28)|
|Re: EBNF firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-12-01)|
|Re: EBNF email@example.com (2004-12-11)|
|Re: EBNF firstname.lastname@example.org (Vidar Hokstad) (2004-12-16)|
|Re: EBNF cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-12-17)|
|Date:||20 Nov 2004 21:39:38 -0500|
|Organization:||AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com|
|Posted-Date:||20 Nov 2004 21:39:38 EST|
I've just read ISO/IEC 14977 and wonder how useful this standard
IMO these people missed to separate lexer from parser issues. With
such a distinction everything would have been simpler, shorter and
more precise to describe?
Furthermore I would like to hear opinions about the differences
between formal lexer and parser grammars. IMO it's not a good idea to
use the same meta language for both kinds of grammars, even if it were
possible to construct such a super language?
[It is my impression that this is intended to provide guidance to the
authors of standards documents and textbooks. I agree that it's not
suitable for feeding to a parser generator. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.