Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"?

Gioele Barabucci <dev@gioelebarabucci.com>
23 Oct 2004 22:35:02 -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)
Re: Why Chomsky Type 3 grammars are called "Regular"? henry@spsystems.net (2004-12-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Gioele Barabucci <dev@gioelebarabucci.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 23 Oct 2004 22:35:02 -0400
Organization: Tiscali Spa
References: 04-10-111
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 23 Oct 2004 22:35:02 EDT

valentin tihomirov wrote:
> 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?
I think he is asking why such a type of grammars is denoted as "regular";
are they more "normal" than contex-free?


I think that "regular" comes, through latin, from "built upon rules".
More explanation is left to the other :)


--
Gioele

Post a followup to this message

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