Re: regarding regular grammars ... THANKS!

Michael Roach <>
29 Nov 1997 00:11:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: regarding regular grammars ... THANKS! (Michael Roach) (1997-11-29)
Re: regarding regular grammars ... THANKS! (Biju Thomas) (1997-11-30)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Michael Roach <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 29 Nov 1997 00:11:33 -0500
Organization: (missing)
References: <01bcf9a1$a8c75d60$>
Keywords: lex, DFA

Thanks to all that responded. Definately saved me many a nights sleep
lost to nightmares while figuring this stuff out. It's interesting that
of all the literature on the subject of automata, most seems to be in
the form of thesis or docturate papers, which of course are based on
other [typically hard to
find] papers that have already laid the gound work or provided a
definition to most of the terms being used. And if its in a book (and
many a paper too), it gets such a high level treatment that a
prerequisite must be the Greek language itself.

So goes life I guess :) On the off chance that I've missed it, are there
any books that cover this topic in depth besides the classic compiler
texts and that don't require a bottle of aspirin to read?

The joys of home schooling continue... Thanks again!


>Could someone please shed some light on how regular grammars could be
>used to specify automata, or transducers, instead of using regular
>expressions? I think I've confused myself by reading into some papers.
>I thought regular expressions were regular grammars, is that assumption
>wrong? And if so, could you explain the differences or point me to some
>references. Thanks.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.