Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:30914 comp.lang.fortran:3571
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Semantic defintions in standards
Message-ID: <59559@lanl.gov>
Date: 8 Aug 90 21:45:55 GMT
References: <1990Aug8.153448.2498@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 20

From article <1990Aug8.153448.2498@zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer):
> In article <652@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (sous-realiste) writes:
> [...]
>>>any of the ``formal semantics'' methods?
>>Or even formal syntax?
> 
> Formal syntax notations are normal nowadays (well, I can't speak for
> the Fortran people :-), but they're normal everywhere else).  [...]

Well, the Fortran 77 standard gave syntax as "railroad tracks".  The
notation was actually equivalent to an LR(1) grammar for the language.
(The syntactical problems caused by insignificant blanks and misidentified
keywords can all be solved by a smart lexer - so the token level syntax
is LR(1).)

The Fortran 90 syntax is given is a pretty typical BNF notation.
I believe that it is again intended to be LR(1) - or even something
simpler for the free form input.

J. Giles