[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Translation of EBNF ops?

Robert Feldt wrote:
> >From the numbered list on page 48 my impression is that:

Your impression is correct.

> ... Or
> do you mean that (a -> c b? d), in this latter scheme, would be
> translated to (a -> c t d) and (t -> b | ;)?

This second form is what I meant.  In other words, it is preferable to
do the more expensive grammar transformation to avoid conflicts.  Just
think of the cost of transforming the following from EBNF to BNF:

prod = a? b? c? d? e? f? g? h? i?

Etienne M. Gagnon, M.Sc.                     e-mail: egagnon@j-meg.com
Author of SableCC:                             http://www.sablecc.org/
and SableVM:                                   http://www.sablevm.org/