Talk:Parsing expression grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not convinced that the grammar listed for {anbncn:n > 0} is correct.
- A ← (a A b)?
- B ← (b B c)?
A matches any number of a's followed by the same number of b's. B matches any number of b's followed by the same number of c's.
- S ← &(A !b) a* B !c
&(A !b) ensures that we have any number of a's followed by the exactly the same number of b's. a* consumes all the a's, and then B !c matches any number of b's followed by the exactly the same number of c's.
In other words, A and B overlap: they match the same string of b's. They are more symmetrical that the rule suggests.
The problem is that the A and B rules also match the empty string, so this grammar accepts for n=0, which per the prose, it shouldn't. (Also, since we know there should be at least one a, we can use a+ instead of a*).
I'm going to change the A and B rules not to match the null string, the S rule to use a+, and use math markup for the equation (and n >= 1 rather than n > 0, both for consistency with Context-sensitive grammar).
Malcolm rowe 13:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
(Removing my own earlier comment.) QTJ 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What does REBOL have to do with parsing expression grammars? Using them or providing a mechanism to use them doesn't count.
- I agree, finding a given language in the See also section is surprising. If PEG is central/essential or at least present as standard feature in this language, explain it after this entry. Otherwise, move it to the External links (or remove it!).
- I suggest also that links in the PEG parser generators section are removed from the External links one (duplicates)
- PhiLho 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please clarify N and Σ in the examples
The definition of a parsing expression grammar says it consists of
a finite set N of nonterminal symbols a finite set Σ of terminal symbols that is disjoint from N a finite set P of parsing rules
Please provide clearly and explicitly in all of the examples, what all three of these are.
S <- if C then S else S / if C then S
"if" "then" and "else" are in the finite set of terminal symbols? If so, then say so. And so forth for the rest of the examples.
thank you. --LAM 66.28.244.66 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First example is incorrect.
The first example (PEG for mathematical formulas that use the basic four operations) is (was, now) incorrect. It allows expressions such as 3.2 + ..2..3..000
Only a single period should be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HappyDog (talk • contribs).
- Thanks, that's a good point. I think the best way is just to take out the decimal point, and only allow the example to recognize non-negative integers. If it's supposed to cover real numbers, it needs a negative sign too, and some needlessly complex parsing rules. I've changed the example to just use non-negative integers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- A good solution. Thanks for the prompt reply. --HappyDog 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggest Merge of Packrat Parser Into This
I suggest that the packrat parser article stub be merged into this article. Since I am a parsing technology author myself, I recuse myself from the discussion beyond this suggestion, to avoid conflicts-of-interest. My rational is that packrat parsing is not widely enough adopted to get a full stub. Packrat parser could then be a redirect to this page, instead.
-- QTJ 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I second QTJ's suggestion.
--Junkblocker 00:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)