BNF: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/82/9.htm Backus-Naur form], a human-reader friendly convention for writing [[ | [http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/82/9.htm Backus-Naur form], a human-reader friendly convention for writing [[context free grammars]]. It incorporates notations for things like optionality and repetition, which are strictly speaking redundant (and so omitted from [[YACC|YACC]] notation), but which humans like to see. In (one of) its [http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/50/39.htm extended forms (E-BNF)], used for a human-friendlier statement of the YACC formal grammar of Lojban. In cases of conflict, however, it is the YACC rather than the E-BNF form of the grammar that is considered canonical. | ||
There are easily dozens of different 'Extended' BNFs, btw. | There are easily dozens of different 'Extended' BNFs, btw. | ||
Latest revision as of 06:48, 22 July 2014
Backus-Naur form, a human-reader friendly convention for writing context free grammars. It incorporates notations for things like optionality and repetition, which are strictly speaking redundant (and so omitted from YACC notation), but which humans like to see. In (one of) its extended forms (E-BNF), used for a human-friendlier statement of the YACC formal grammar of Lojban. In cases of conflict, however, it is the YACC rather than the E-BNF form of the grammar that is considered canonical.
There are easily dozens of different 'Extended' BNFs, btw.