Talk:Parse EBNF: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 20:30, 22 April 2011

I guess I started this as a draft task because I haven't implemented it myself yet.
There is no reason to keep it a draft too long if we get a few fresh implementations here. Tinku99 05:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)tinku99

Interesting. I usually create a task after having an implementation as it helps with the task description etc. --Paddy3118 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The task wording is somewhat sloppy. A parser could be for a (EBNF) grammar, not (plural) grammars. For grammars there can be a parser generator. The existing examples in fact build a parser for a particular grammar, and they don't use EBNF at all. May be task should be renamed as "Simple calculator parser"?Avmich 20:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:06, 1 December 2010 (view source) rosettacode>Dkf m (moved Talk:EBNF Parser to Talk:EBNF parser: capitalization policy) ← Older edit		Revision as of 20:30, 22 April 2011 (view source) rosettacode>Avmich (Need to better define the task) Newer edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	: Interesting. I usually create a task after having an implementation as it helps with the task description etc. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)		: Interesting. I usually create a task after having an implementation as it helps with the task description etc. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

			The task wording is somewhat sloppy. A parser could be for a (EBNF) grammar, not (plural) grammars. For grammars there can be a parser generator. The existing examples in fact build a parser for a particular grammar, and they don't use EBNF at all. May be task should be renamed as "Simple calculator parser"?[[User:Avmich\|Avmich]] 20:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)