ebnf

How can I use these BNF grammars which are in GOLD meta-syntax (RegExp + BNF) with TinyPG? I'm new to BNF so approximately what sort of conversion will I have to do to convert BNF to EBNF? I believe it should be pretty simple since TinyPG needs RegExp + EBNF in comparison to the GOLD grammars which are RegExp + BNF . Also, is there any TinyPG source code for any language available, just to see what sort of conversion I would have to do? EBNF is not entirely backwards compatible with BNF, however the differences are actually slight, you should be familiar with the document at http://www.cs.cmu

Anybody know of a tool, that generates EBNF from ANTLR? ANTLR is already close to EBNF, but for documentation purpose I would like to have a clean EBNF description (without the Code in between). With antlrworks and this its already nice to get the syntax diagrams: java -cp antlrworks-1.1.4.jar org.antlr.works.Console -f yql.g -o output/ -sd eps but it would like to have a bare textual description, preferable text, tex, html, xml, or similar. I have an online tool that converts foreign grammars to W3C grammar notation. It has an ANTLR3 grammar parser, so maybe this gets close to what you were

Is there an existing POSIX sh grammar available or do I have to figure it out from the specification directly? Note I'm not so much interested in a pure sh; an extended but conformant sh is also more than fine for my purposes. The POSIX standard defines the grammar for the POSIX shell. The definition includes an annotated Yacc grammar. As such, it can be converted to EBNF more or less mechanically. If you want a 'real' grammar, then you have to look harder. Choose your 'real shell' and find the source and work out what the grammar is from that. Note that EBNF is not used widely. It is of

I have markup language which is similar to markdown and the one used by SO. Legacy parser was based on regexes and was complete nightmare to maintain, so I've come up with my own solution based on EBNF grammar and implemented via mxTextTools/SimpleParse. However, there are issues with some tokens which may include each other, and I don't see a 'right' way to do it. Here is part of my grammar: newline := "\r\n"/"\n"/"\r" indent := ("\r\n"/"\n"/"\r"), [ \t] number := [0-9]+ whitespace := [ \t]+ symbol_mark := [*_>#`%] symbol_mark_noa := [_>#`%] symbol_mark_nou := [*>#`%] symbol_mark_nop := [*_>#

Does anyone know where I can get the BNF or EBNF for the LOGO programming language? A BNF grammar might not be too useful in certain circumstances... Writing a LOGO that's accurately compatible with existing/historical implementation isn't an easy task (I worked on such a project). The problem is that the parser doesn't do the full job, and the evaluator (interpreter) has to work with partial data. Consider this example: proc1 a b proc2 c It could mean proc1(a, b, proc2(c)) or proc1(a, b, proc2(), c) according to the number of parameters for proc1 & proc2. Furthermore the LOGO interpreters I

I am trying to write a grammar in EBNF (barring a really good reason, it has to be EBNF) and am looking for a couple of utilities for it - if there's a GUI interface that can make one, that would be great, but the thing I'm looking for most is something that can check the grammar, for instance to see if it is LALR( n ), and if so, what the value of n is. Do such utilities exist? Are there any other useful grammar-writing tools I should know about (I'm not looking for parser generators). Taking Steven Dee's suggestion one step further, you might want to check out ANTLRWorks , which is an

I know this might be a newbie question, but I'm trying to make sense of this sentence(from a paper on a meta language that uses EBNF): Logical and (&) binds stronger than logical or (|). Before that it says: Conditions are: condition ::= condition (`&´ | `|´ ) condition | `!´ condition | relation relation ::= expression ( `=´ | `#´ | `<´ | `<=´ | `>´ | `>=´ ) expression thanks This refers to precedence . In other words, if you have A & B | C , you really have (A & B) | C . Operations with higher precedence/that bind stronger are evaluated first. 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16876455