|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)|
|From:||email@example.com (Uncle Noah)|
|Date:||28 Nov 2004 23:20:34 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||28 Nov 2004 23:20:34 EST|
> firstname.lastname@example.org (VBDis) wrote in message news:04-11-089...
> I've just read ISO/IEC 14977 and wonder how useful this standard
> really is?
The ENBF is important indeed. However, not that much parsing tools use
the Extended BNF. Most of them are YACC-like variants or regular BNF.
There is an arguement on the shift-reduce or reduce-reduce conflicts
that tend to occur more often in EBNF grammars.
There is some tool named "ebnf2yacc" you can experiment with.
Personally I use the "GOLD Parser Builder" which uses regular BNF.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.