| Related articles |
|---|
| [2 earlier articles] |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? terryg@uswest.net (1999-09-20) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? lex@cc.gatech.edu (1999-09-20) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? cbarron3@ix.netcom.com (1999-09-20) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? zalman@netcom18.netcom.com (Zalman Stern) (1999-09-24) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? zalman@netcom18.netcom.com (Zalman Stern) (1999-09-24) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? zalman@netcom18.netcom.com (Zalman Stern) (1999-09-24) |
| Re: Regular expression grammar? cbarron3@ix.netcom.com (1999-09-27) |
| From: | cbarron3@ix.netcom.com (Carl Barron) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 27 Sep 1999 11:18:54 -0400 |
| Organization: | Netcom |
| References: | 99-09-051 99-09-087 |
| Keywords: | lex |
Zalman Stern <zalman@netcom18.netcom.com> wrote:
> I sent email to the original poster 'cause I was embarassed to post my
> grammar, but seeing the responses, I think its ok. My main point to the
> poster is that the grammar needs to tell the parser generator how to handle
> the following two cases:
> is "ab|cd" equivalent to "a(b|c)d" or equiv. to "(ab)|(cd)"
> and
> is "ab*" equivalent to "a(b*)" or equiv. to "(ab)*"
ab}cd is normally (ab)|(cd)
ab* is normally a(b*)
and for all concerned a** == a*
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.