From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.74.201 with SMTP id w9mr4828684pbv.0.1331198750282; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:25:50 -0800 (PST) Path: h9ni1881pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Verified compilers? Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:25:54 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1d576lv10h3ax$.lkh58yfbl5dy$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <9207716.776.1331054644462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz38> <4edda5mav3cf$.149pbgyxl1wx5.dlg@40tude.net> <9rplcgF5a2U1@mid.individual.net> <1psd0g0womgxi.1sle7ol12x3d5.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-03-08T10:25:54+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:42:23 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote: > As far as LR parsing is concerned, that's the most general practical parsing > scheme. There are many legitmate BNFs that cannot be parsed using recursive > descent. There are also ambiguous BNFs, which means that BNF is not so formal as it may appear. The point is that I don't care about that or about restricting it to a certain class etc. Because there is no value in such activity at all. BNF is good for *informal* description of the language syntax. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de