Van Wijngaarden grammars

Dave Lloyd <>
27 Feb 1996 23:26:05 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Van Wijngaarden grammars (Stephen J Bevan) (1991-08-02)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars (Charles Lindsey) (1991-08-07)
Van Wijngaarden grammars (1996-02-24)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars (1996-02-26)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars (Michael Parkes) (1996-02-27)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-27)
Van Wijngaarden grammars (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-27)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars (Gordon V. Cormack) (1996-03-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Dave Lloyd <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 1996 23:26:05 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 96-02-297
Keywords: parse

> Have any languages other than Algol68 used van Wijngaarden grammars
> for their definition?

Ponder (a declarative polymorphic language from Jon Fairbairn,
Uni. Cambridge Comp. Labs).

But in fact I have seen the ideas of two-level grammars sneaking into
a lot of language descriptions - at least as far as attributing
productions with the type of the value (l or r) as a very concise way
of saying types must match, but I have only seen A68 and Ponder use
them to define how coercions work, require only a single declaration
of an identifier in a range, require visible declarations, etc.
Although some of these formalisms were not in the 1968 only the 1973
description providing, IMO, unnecessary obfuscation albeit greater
formal definition.

Dave Lloyd Email:
Oxford and Cambridge Compilers Ltd Phone: (44) 1223 572074
55 Brampton Rd, Cambridge CB1 3HJ, UK

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.