Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"?

"valentin tihomirov" <spam@abelectron.com>
17 Oct 2004 16:04:22 -0400

From comp.compilers

Related articles
*Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? spam@abelectron.com (valentin tihomirov)* (2004-10-17)**
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? mefrill@yandex.ru (2004-10-21)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? torbenm@diku.dk (2004-10-21)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? dev@gioelebarabucci.com (Gioele Barabucci) (2004-10-23)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? spam@abelectron.com (valentin tihomirov) (2004-11-28)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? torbenm@diku.dk (2004-12-01)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? spam@abelectron.com (valentin tihomirov) (2004-12-05)
[1 later articles]

| List of all articles for this month |

From:	"valentin tihomirov" <spam@abelectron.com>
Newsgroups:	comp.compilers
Date:	17 Oct 2004 16:04:22 -0400
Organization:	Compilers Central
Keywords:	parse, history, question
Posted-Date:	17 Oct 2004 16:04:22 EDT

The context free grammars written using RegExps in their rules are called
extended CF grammars or regular right part grammars. Why the Type 3 grammars
expropriate the RE definition, what does the "regular" mean?

Post a followup to this message

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