|SUMMARY: BNF definition firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronny De Winter) (1994-05-18)|
|Re: SUMMARY: BNF definition (EBNF acceptance) email@example.com (Nathan K. Inada) (1994-05-18)|
|Re: SUMMARY: BNF definition (EBNF acceptance) firstname.lastname@example.org (Terence Parr) (1994-05-20)|
|Re: SUMMARY: BNF definition (EBNF acceptance) email@example.com (1994-05-22)|
|Re: SUMMARY: BNF definition (EBNF acceptance) max@Kolmogorov.gac.edu (1994-05-23)|
|From:||"Nathan K. Inada" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Organization:||Software Technologies Corporation|
|Date:||Wed, 18 May 1994 12:58:40 GMT|
.> Although they can significantly improve the readability of the
.> grammar, they complicate the matter when it comes to parser or
.> code generation, so EBNF is generally unpopular in compilers
is this true?
the PCCTS manual sez regarding its use of EBNF:
"This also has the advantage of being more consistent with the
regular expression notation and providing additional information
which can be used to create a more efficient parser."
is EBNF unpopular to the compiler theorist but not compiler
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.