Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| EBNF vbdis@aol.com (2004-11-20) |
| Re: EBNF nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (2004-11-28) |
| Re: EBNF martin@cs.uu.nl (Martin Bravenboer) (2004-11-28) |
| Re: EBNF vbdis@aol.com (2004-12-01) |
| Re: EBNF henry@spsystems.net (2004-12-11) |
| Re: EBNF vidar@hokstad.name (Vidar Hokstad) (2004-12-16) |
| Re: EBNF cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-12-17) |
| From: | vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 20 Nov 2004 21:39:38 -0500 |
| Organization: | AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com |
| Keywords: | syntax, question |
| Posted-Date: | 20 Nov 2004 21:39:38 EST |
I've just read ISO/IEC 14977 and wonder how useful this standard
really is?
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?
DoDi
[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
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.