Talk:Parse EBNF: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→EBNF parser or parser for the given EBNF grammar?: To hard to do?) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::If it needs to be an EBNF parser then we have a task description with no working language implementation after 11 months. Do we need a rule that tasks should have at least one correct implementation or at least some indication from the task creator, Tinku, that an implementation is correct after a reasonal amount of time - say - a week or two? Looking at this task, it seems to have been abandoned by Tinku without them OK'ing any of the implementations. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
::If it needs to be an EBNF parser then we have a task description with no working language implementation after 11 months. Do we need a rule that tasks should have at least one correct implementation or at least some indication from the task creator, Tinku, that an implementation is correct after a reasonal amount of time - say - a week or two? Looking at this task, it seems to have been abandoned by Tinku without them OK'ing any of the implementations. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::OK, this makes sense. In which format is the grammar supposed to be? Does it have to be plain text form, or could it also be e.g. in s-expressions, which would be the natural choice in case of PicoLisp. |
|||