[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Issue: Should we disallow nested grammars?
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI wrote: > This BNF still has a loophole: Yes, it does. > I don't think schema is enough to completely prohibit them: I tried to further tighten the BNF and failed. It does not seem to be possible to provide a just-enough BNF. Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI wrote: > By the way, rewritten BNF is an ambiguous grammar, isn't it. No, it isn't. Murata Makoto wrote: > textPattern ::= ... > | <t:choice> textPattern textPattern </t:choice> > > nonTextPattern ::= ... > | <t:choice> nonTextPattern nonTextPattern </t:choice> > | <t:choice> textPattern nonTextPattern </t:choice> > | <t:choice> nonTextPattern textPattern</t:choice> We only have to consider these productions, since other productions have non-overlapping terminals. By easy induction, each sentence has one and only one derivation tree. Cheers, Makoto
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC