Anonymous user
Talk:Parse EBNF: Difference between revisions
→EBNF parser or parser for the given EBNF grammar?: To hard to do?
(→EBNF parser or parser for the given EBNF grammar?: Examples are wrong.) |
(→EBNF parser or parser for the given EBNF grammar?: To hard to do?) |
||
Line 14:
: Yes, the parser should take an EBNF grammar as input. The two examples (PicoLisp and Tcl) are wrong. I would keep the title "EBNF parser". --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 14:34, 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)
| |||