Precise definition of "syntax diagram"

In article <1990Oct16.015524.25858@comp.vuw.ac.nz> lindsay@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Lindsay Groves) writes:
>In article <9010101445.AA06181@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>hankd@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Hank Dietz) writes:
>|> Pascal is generally defined using a set of syntax diagrams which, by
>|> definition, means the language can be recognized using LL(1).
>
>You must be using a strange definition a syntax diagrams if they can
>only describe languages that have LL(1) grammars.


The rule I have heard is that a syntax diagram is literally a flowchart
for an LL(1) parser where the branching decisions are obvious, hence
the branch decision nodes are omitted. This was certainly true of all
syntax diagrams I saw earlier, but I have more recently seen "syntax
diagrams" which are no more constrained than arbitrary CFGs + looping,
and differ from them only in having arrows between symbols.


E.g., is the following a legal syntax diagram for S -> S a, S -> b?


S --+-->[S]---->(a)--+-->
        | |
        +-->(b)--------->+


I believe it isn't. Right or wrong? References, anyone?


-hankd@ecn.purdue.edu


PS: The unconstrained form looks more like a RTN to me....
--

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