| To: | yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation |
| From: | Tom Lord <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <200204091857.OAA35259@raptor.research.att.com><200204092229.g39MTeX00802@shade.twinsun.com><200204092254.PAA02436@morrowfield.home><200204092340.g39Neua00876@shade.twinsun.com><uelho8ehm.wl@AMBER.yamato.ibm.com><200204100453.VAA03344@morrowfield.home> <ubscs855m.wl@AMBER.yamato.ibm.com> |
Then RE implementations may use the grammar except BNF notation.
For example the interpretation (1c) which Paul said is also valid.
And RE implementations may also use Right-associative grammar, since
they describe the same syntax.
Is your point that the language of the spec is poor? Or that all
those interpretations should be permitted? With the former, I agree.
That the latter is not the case is, I think, underscored by Hume's
message.
-t
yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx, yyyy@xxxxxxx
---
How valuable is my contribution? Share your feedback at
Affero:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=tomlord
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Isamu Hasegawa |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Isamu Hasegawa |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Isamu Hasegawa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |