|Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (Seima Rao) (2014-06-17)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com) (2014-06-20)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-20)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-06-21)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-06-21)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=) (2014-06-22)|
|Re: VWG and K, was Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-22)|
|[34 later articles]|
|From:||Seima Rao <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:54:12 +0530|
|Keywords:||standards, question, comment|
|Posted-Date:||20 Jun 2014 09:16:04 EDT|
We are in a great era of infinite languages and sure standardizations.
I myself keep studying a same few standards whenever there is free time.
Some of the noticeable aspect about standards is that most of them
tend to follow the same format: grammar in BNF, semantics in
documentation. This is the pattern throughout.
Therefore I am curious to know if there are other interesting formatting
of language standards or language definitions such that the
pattern is different?
This sounds crazy but language designers tend to be geeky hence
[People have tried lots of other definition schemes over the years, like railroad
diagrams in some Fortran standards and VDL in PL/I. BNF+text seems to be a workable
balance between formalisms and readability. The PL/I standard was notably opaque,
and its authors said "you don't have to understand it, just implement it" to which
the answer was "yeah, bugs and all." -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.