Related articles |
---|
EBNF vbdis@aol.com (2004-11-20) |
Re: EBNF nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (2004-11-28) |
Re: EBNF martin@cs.uu.nl (Martin Bravenboer) (2004-11-28) |
Re: EBNF vbdis@aol.com (2004-12-01) |
Re: EBNF henry@spsystems.net (2004-12-11) |
Re: EBNF vidar@hokstad.name (Vidar Hokstad) (2004-12-16) |
Re: EBNF cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-12-17) |
From: | nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (Uncle Noah) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 28 Nov 2004 23:20:34 -0500 |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
References: | 04-11-089 |
Keywords: | syntax |
Posted-Date: | 28 Nov 2004 23:20:34 EST |
> vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) wrote in message news:04-11-089...
> I've just read ISO/IEC 14977 and wonder how useful this standard
> really is?
The ENBF is important indeed. However, not that much parsing tools use
the Extended BNF. Most of them are YACC-like variants or regular BNF.
There is an arguement on the shift-reduce or reduce-reduce conflicts
that tend to occur more often in EBNF grammars.
There is some tool named "ebnf2yacc" you can experiment with.
Personally I use the "GOLD Parser Builder" which uses regular BNF.
Regards
Nikolaos Kavvadias
<nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr>
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.