|Opeartor-precedence v.s. LL(1) email@example.com (1993-08-28)|
|Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-08-29)|
|Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) email@example.com (1993-08-30)|
|Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-09-07)|
|Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) email@example.com (1993-09-07)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Spencer)|
|Organization:||University of Nebraska at Omaha|
|Date:||Tue, 7 Sep 1993 00:12:06 GMT|
email@example.com (Barton Christopher Massey) writes:
>P.S. -- What's the right word for the relationship between a
>grammar and its language? "parse"? "generate"? "derive"? I
>use "describe", but it would be nice if the world could agree on
>a terminology. I have found that the confusion between classes
>of grammars and classes of languages is endemic among novices
>such as myself, and a stricter terminology might help the problem...
Actually "parse", "generate", and "derive" are all used for different
things in connection grammars.
A string w can be derived from a grammar G if there are productions that
blah, blah ...
The language L(G) generated by a grammar G is the set of all strings that
can be derived from G.
Gammars never derive languages nor do they generate strings.
Parsing a string w that is in L(G) means looking at the derivation of w
and gettinging information out of the derivation.
I think that this terminology is all pretty standard.
I hope that this helps.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.