|Semantics, opt in Semantics email@example.com (Seima Rao) (2015-01-15)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics firstname.lastname@example.org (2015-01-16)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2015-01-16)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans Aberg) (2015-01-16)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics email@example.com (2015-01-16)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-01-17)|
|Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (2015-01-18)|
|From:||Seima Rao <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:42:17 +0530|
|Keywords:||semantics, question, comment|
|Posted-Date:||16 Jan 2015 10:18:44 EST|
The Backus Naur Form is a great mathematical model. It explains syntax
In that form, the opt qualifier which stands for optional or
epsilon is utilized extensively for optional syntax.
Is there something similar for semantics i.e. is there something optional
Also, what is the equivalent in semantics of BNF ?
[Man, there's a can of worms. There's no semantic formalism that matches real
semantics as well as BNF matches real syntax. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.