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