Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why? rockbrentwood@gmail.com (2019-12-29) |
| Re: Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why? 493-878-3164@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-12-30) |
| From: | Kaz Kylheku <493-878-3164@kylheku.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:04:05 +0000 (UTC) |
| Organization: | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| References: | 19-12-034 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="53342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | parse, design |
| Posted-Date: | 30 Dec 2019 20:11:43 EST |
On 2019-12-30, rockbrentwood@gmail.com <rockbrentwood@gmail.com> wrote:
> and is segmented into subgroups Sx, Sc, Se, Sb, Sl, Sj of S. Why? Why not just
> write it as one segment like this? It's not creating new conflicts in so
> doing.
They want to maintain hierarchical categories like "iteration statement"
and "selection statement" as part of the language definition.
There is some advantage in this when documenting, because the grammar
fragment given in each section is understood to be complete.
That is to say, in the document section on selection statements, say,
the grammar fragment which defines selection-statement is complete in
the sense that nothing else in the document is a selection-statement.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.