Re: BNF Comment - was Re: module foo; vs module foo();

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 18:05:02 PST

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "Re: Frame Source for 1364-1995"

    Precedence: bulk

    Ambiguity is not an aid to the human reader.
    Nor is the use of 12 production where 3 will suffice, as
    in issue 181 http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/181.html

    -- Brad

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com]On Behalf Of Steven
    Sharp
    Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:18 PM
    To: etf@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: BNF Comment - was Re: module foo; vs module foo();

    Precedence: bulk

    I agree philosophically with Cliff. The purpose of the BNF is as user
    documentation of the syntax. It should be made easy for humans to read
    and interpret. It should not be required to satisfy the restrictions
    imposed by automatic parser generators. That is what compiler
    writers get paid for.

    Furthermore, I think we have enough work to do without changing a bunch
    of things that aren't actually wrong. I may not agree on the best form
    for documenting the grammar either, but we need to deal with more serious
    issues.

    Steven Sharp
    sharp@cadence.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 18:06:56 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.