Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions)

"Paul Mann" <paul@parsetec.com>
20 Oct 2005 00:05:35 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-14)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-15)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-17)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-19)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-19)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-20)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-23)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-26)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) RLake@oxfam.org.uk (2005-10-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Paul Mann" <paul@parsetec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Oct 2005 00:05:35 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-10-104 05-10-125
Keywords: syntax
Posted-Date: 20 Oct 2005 00:05:35 EDT

>> BTW, show me a more concise way to specify "zero or more of X or Y
>> or Z separated by commas"
>> LRgen allows one to do it like this: [X|Y|Z]/','...
>
> Similar concise: ((X|Y|Z),)*
>


Would this allow the following sequence to be legal?


      X,Y,Z,


If so, it's not the same as [X|Y|Z]/','...
It seems like one would have to say


      ((X|Y|Z)(,(X|Y|Z))*)?


to accomplish the same thing.




Paul Mann
http://parsetec.com


Post a followup to this message

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