Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!turing.toronto.edu!holt
From: holt@turing.toronto.edu (Ric Holt)
Subject: Re: Language Design
Message-ID: <89Mar23.094504est.4328@turing.toronto.edu>
Organization: /usr/local/lib/organization
References: <5200040@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <12443@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <9122@claris.com> <12606@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <9162@claris.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 09:44:59 EST

#>>A context-free grammar G is a 4-tuple  G = <N,T,P,S> where N is a finite
#>>set of nonterminal symbols, T (the alphabet) is a finite set of terminal 
#>>symbols, P is a finite set of production rules of the form  A -> X1 X2 X3 ...
#>>where A is in N, and X1, X2, X3 are in Union(N,T).  S in N is the Start symbol.
#>"Why are even bothering to argue with these idiots?"
#>Good question.
#>
#>Bob Hearn
#>hearn@claris.com

In my modest opinion, Bob Hearn is doing a fine job of entertaining us
with his emotional outbursts, but a considerable disservice with his
claims.  Likely, Cormack is correct and Hearn is wrong.  Likely
C's grammar is not Context Free.

I believe Cormack (in his academic way) has proven Hearn wrong.  I believe
C's grammar has the appearance of a context free grammar but that it
violates the mathematical def of context free.

This question (is C's grammar context free) is 
important and we should get a clear answer to it rather than outbursts.
Could someone please settle this definitely?
		Ric Holt