Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars

hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
2 Aug 91 12:29:39 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Van Wijngaarden grammars tjj@thumper.bellcore.com (1991-07-22)
Re: van Wijngaarden grammars eggert@twinsun.com (1991-07-25)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars dww@math.fu-berlin.de (1991-07-25)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars tjj@thumper.bellcore.com (1991-07-29)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars hugh@cs.kun.nl (1991-08-02)
Van Wijngaarden grammars bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) (1991-08-02)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (1991-08-07)
Van Wijngaarden grammars fanf2@thor.cam.ac.uk (1996-02-24)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars solution@gate.net (1996-02-26)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars mparks@oz.net (Michael Parkes) (1996-02-27)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-27)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.sources.wanted
From: hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Followup-To: comp.compilers
Keywords: parse
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
References: 91-07-047 91-08-005
Date: 2 Aug 91 12:29:39 GMT

In 91-08-005 tjj@thumper.bellcore.com (Tim Jordan) writes:
>Glammar uses Van Wijngaarden grammars. Here's something I found on it.


To be perfectly honest: Glammar uses (a subset of) Extended Affix
Grammars (EAG), which are there in the same club as Attribute Grammars and van
Wijngaarden grammars, but they are not identical --- certainly not
syntactically.


Programmar, which should be released soon, is another implementation of
EAG which is IMHO much closer to the formal definition of EAG as well as
syntactically closer to vW grammars.
                                                            Hugh.
--

Post a followup to this message

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