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: 103376,24d7acf9b853aac8
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.105.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: S-expression I/O in Ada
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <547afa6b-731e-475f-a7f2-eaefefb25861@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <87aap6wcdx.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87vd7jliyi.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <699464f5-7f04-4ced-bc09-6ffc42c5322a@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
 <87k4nylb8c.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <4c617774$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <2610d347-27cf-4c88-ac18-84f73c7da858@h32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <i41g2p$1sfo$1@adenine.netfront.net> <878w4blhzj.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <i41sgl$8a0$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <294ab0aa-a7f5-440e-8255-afaaa93a2cf2@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:51:54 +0200
Message-ID: <vltww3i3x5jm$.2mdaw4aspmq5$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2010 11:51:52 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: d3d06340.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=9:kWLCTTKI2RLigj];iP=8A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;d6k@k3`FIU7[6LHn;2LCV>[<mhadbfdU;WA]D\Y7Cg6;fIdJICiWN=6
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13211
Date: 2010-08-13T11:51:52+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Natacha Kerensikova wrote:

> On Aug 13, 12:25�am, "Jeffrey R. Carter"

>> provided a more detailed grammar (using the
>> trailing '*' from regexps rather than {}) with some additional options.
> 
> Is one of them more standard than the other?

{} is from EBNF

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Backus%E2%80%93Naur_Form

used in the meaning "repeat or nothing". However earlier, at least I
remember it so, {} was rather used as mere grouping brackets of required
alternatives, and the number of repetitions where written as a superscript
number on the closing bracket. So the newish {P} were denoted as [P]*. And
[P] itself was an abbreviation of {P|} etc.

> I can assure you what I'm doing is completely conform with Rivest's
> standard proposition. I don't know how come it has not reached the
> status of full-fledged RFC (while real RFCs like SPKI do depend on
> it),

Probably because there already was a standard, the Abstract Syntax
Notation:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASN.1

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de