Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!jvc!lpw
From: lpw@jvc.UUCP (Lance Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Compiled PostScript
Summary: BNF or parser trivial snap?
Message-ID: <550@jvc.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 90 20:02:50 GMT
References: <POLLACK.89Dec4133944@toto.cis.ohio-state.edu> <28@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <1989Dec31.053812.3410@ico.isc.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: JVC Laboratory of America
Lines: 21


If these people think that parsing PS and writing grammars is a trivial snap:

woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes:
> Actually, a Compiled version of PS is not unreasonable.   Given a good
> BNF of the language, YACC and LEX should make the parser a snap.

From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
> The BNF of PostScript is so trivial it's (a) uninteresting and (b)
> unhelpful.  The parser is a snap; it would be kinda dumb to use YACC for
> it.  (Of *course* the parser is simple--that's one of the arguments for
> using a postfix stack-oriented language!)

From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
> It's trivial to write a context-free grammar for PostScript.  And that's
> not the reason for not compiling it.

then why have we never seen anyone post a BNF for postscript or a
public domain parser?  I'll bet it's harder than they think.

-Lance P. Welsh  uunet!jvc!lpw  JVC Laboratory of America