Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why?

Path	csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From	rockbrentwood@gmail.com
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why?
Date	Sun, 29 Dec 2019 21:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Organization	Compilers Central
Lines	53
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<19-12-034@comp.compilers> (permalink)
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Injection-Info	gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="8146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	parse, design
Posted-Date	30 Dec 2019 11:30:31 EST
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:2415

Show key headers only | View raw

I see this with many specifications -- redundant non-terminals and rules. I'll
illustrate it with a part of the grammar spec for C17.

Abbreviate opt, statement, labeled-statement, compound-statement,
expression-statement, selection-statement, iteration-statement,
jump-statement, block-item, block-item-list, declaration, expression,
constant-expression, identifier respectively as ?, S, Sx, Sc, Se, Sb, Sl, Sj,
SD, SDs, D, E, Ec, X for

The statement grammar is
(6.8)   S -> Sx | Sc | Se | Sb | Sl | Sj
(6.8.1) Sx -> X ':' S
        Sx -> 'case' Ec ':' S
        Sx -> 'default' ':' S
(6.8.2) Sc -> '{' SDs? '}'
        SDs -> SD | SDs SD
        SD -> D | S
(6.8.3) Se -> E? ';'
(6.8.4) Sb -> 'if' '(' E ')' S
        Sb -> 'if' '(' E ')' S 'else' S
        Sb -> 'switch' '(' E ')' S
(6.8.5) Sl -> 'while' '(' E ')' S
        Sl -> 'do' S 'while' '(' E ')' ';'
        Sl -> 'for' '(' E? ';' E? ';' E? ')' S
        Sl -> 'for' '(' D  E? ';' E? ')' S
(6.8.6) Sj -> 'goto' X ';'
        Sj -> 'continue' ';'
        Sj -> 'break' ';'
        Sj -> 'return' E? ';'

and is segmented into subgroups Sx, Sc, Se, Sb, Sl, Sj of S. Why? Why not just
write it as one segment like this? It's not creating new conflicts in so
doing.

(6.8)
(6.8.1) S -> X ':' S
        S -> 'case' Ec ':' S
        S -> 'default' ':' S
(6.8.2) S -> '{' SDs? '}'
(6.8.3) S -> E? ';'
        SDs -> SD | SDs SD
        SD -> D | S
(6.8.4) S -> 'if' '(' E ')' S
        S -> 'if' '(' E ')' S 'else' S
        S -> 'switch' '(' E ')' S
(6.8.5) S -> 'while' '(' E ')' S
        S -> 'do' S 'while' '(' E ')' ';'
        S -> 'for' '(' E? ';' E? ';' E? ')' S
        S -> 'for' '(' D  E? ';' E? ')' S
(6.8.6) S -> 'goto' X ';'
        S -> 'continue' ';'
        S -> 'break' ';'
        S -> 'return' E? ';'

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why? rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2019-12-29 21:05 -0800
  Re: Segmentation in programming language grammars .. why? Kaz Kylheku <493-878-3164@kylheku.com> - 2019-12-30 18:04 +0000

csiph-web