bnf

I may well be asking something not achievable here.. Maybe someone can point out either (a) What would be some steps (/tools?) to at least partially achieve creation of bnf diagrams from a (rather complex) antlr grammar (b) why (if it were the case) this simply can not be achieved. E.g. maybe since antlr is extended BNF and its recursive structure differs from bnf requirements.. Along those lines. ANTLRWorks 1 works for generating diagrams, one at a time, for rule. for v4, ANTLRWorks 2 also generates them though I'm not sure it can save them to disk. Ter If it is an ANTLR 3 grammar, you could

I'm looking for a BNF/EBNF of XML Schema. I just found the one for XML ( http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml or extracted at http://www.jelks.nu/XML/xmlebnf.html ). Well it's a starting point, but I'm curious that I couldn't find a more specific one for XML Schema. I guess because nobody finds that useful, and it would be too complex. If somebody want to define an XML language, such as XML Schema, they would probably use XML primitives like elements or attributes (using XML Schema, Relax NG, DTD, etc.), not characters. One of the reasons XML was invented is to have a meta language for creating other

Have found C++ BNF and there next lines selection-statement: if ( condition ) statement if ( condition ) statement else statement Now trying to write parser. Need to build parse tree. On input i have BNF and source file. But i'm stucked in how i can point my parser what if condition evaluated to true, then it need to execute first statement otherwise else block? Thanks. Conditional statements have a simple recursive structure. The corresponding recursive descent parser has a similarly simple recursive structure. Abstractly, the interior conditionals are parsed as follows: <cond> -> if

I have the following grammar for expressions involving binary operators (| ^ & << >> + - * /): expression : expression BITWISE_OR xor_expression | xor_expression xor_expression : xor_expression BITWISE_XOR and_expression | and_expression and_expression : and_expression BITWISE_AND shift_expression | shift_expression shift_expression : shift_expression LEFT_SHIFT arith_expression | shift_expression RIGHT_SHIFT arith_expression | arith_expression arith_expression : arith_expression PLUS term | arith_expression MINUS term | term term : term TIMES factor | term DIVIDE factor | factor factor :

I am revamping an inhouse C language bison/flex-based parser, amongst others introducing proper __ attribute__ support. Since I cannot find any official BNF-style grammar which describes GNU GCC __ attribute__ idea (except the http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html document) I am extracting bits and pieces from the C++x11 standard and comments in various implementations found over the web. I have almost got it done (at least when it comes to parsing examples included in GCC's doc cited above) but one particular example has given me a headache with no hint of solution in

I'm interested in the famous The syntax of C in Backus-Naur Form and studied for a while, what confuse me is that some syntax looks wrong to me but is considered right according to the BNF. For example, int test {} , what's this? I think this is a ill syntax in C, but the truth is the BNF considered this a function definition: int -> type_const -> type_spec -> decl_specs test-> id -> direct_declarator -> declarator '{' '}' -> compound_stat decl_specs declarator compound_stat -> function_definition I tried this with bison, it considered the input int test {} is a right form, but I tried this on