Re: RegExp: EBNF or POSIX notation?

=?ISO-8859-15?q?=22Cass=E9=.Hugues@free.fr <casse@netcourrier.com>
6 Feb 2002 23:38:19 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
RegExp: EBNF or POSIX notation? dreyer@cl.uni-heidelberg.de (Markus Dreyer) (2002-01-24)
Re: RegExp: EBNF or POSIX notation? casse@netcourrier.com (=?ISO-8859-15?q?=22Cass=E9=.Hugues@free.fr) (2002-02-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: =?ISO-8859-15?q?=22Cass=E9=.Hugues@free.fr <casse@netcourrier.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 Feb 2002 23:38:19 -0500
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
References: 02-01-110
Keywords: , comment
Posted-Date: 06 Feb 2002 23:38:19 EST

I think your question is a little missy. EBNF and regular expressions
does not covers the same set of expressiveness. EBNF is a super-set
for regular expression extending them to context recording. Usually,
EBNF is used for languages with words which requires such a kind of
complexity, that is parsing. Regular expressions are more used for
lexing for representing words in classical compilation. Yet, this is
just my point of view.




"Markus Dreyer" <dreyer@cl.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit :


> I have implemented a grammar using regular expressions. Now I am
> describing the ideas and the implementation in an academic paper.
>
> Which notation should I use to describe my regular expressions? Is EBNF
> (ISO 14977) okay? Or shall I use the POSIX notation? Or another?
>
> Thanks. Markus.
> [I don't think it matters much unless the professor for whom you're
> writing has strong religious views on the topic. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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