Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc19!sdcc15!pa1162
From: pa1162@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (pa1162)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Language Design
Summary: The K&R grammar may not even be the one in the book.
Keywords: BNF, Grammars, Silliness
Message-ID: <1355@sdcc15.ucsd.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 89 23:09:18 GMT
References: <5200040@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <12443@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <9122@claris.com> <12606@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <9162@claris.com>
Reply-To: pa1162@sdcc15.UUCP ()
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 17

Bob,
I'm only a student, so don't think I have pretensions to telling you folks
you're business, but the grammar in K&R probably isn't even the grammar
for C... as I think you or someone else mentioned... it gets tweaked
a bit if you want to try to write a compiler from it... so worry about
whether it is context-free is immaterial.  Why don't we all open our
K&R (old edition) to page 214 and read the note at the heading of section 18
"Syntax Summary".  It says that the syntax summary given isn't
meant as an exact statement of the language.  This isn't meant to
be a flame... it's an attempt at a distinction because I think you and
whoever are arguing at cross-purposes.  The discussion is either
about context-freeness and grammars or about non-precise syntax summaries
and it's really not clear which one.  As I said I am yet a student...
but I can see the structure of an argument when it hits me in the face.
I recommend somone clarify the and separate the matters at hand so that
all this "stuff" can be separated.
-Thomas Kammeyer (A student who likes to stick his nose into discussions)