Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: Seima Rao Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Formatting of Language LRMs Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:54:12 +0530 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 24 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-06-010@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1403270164 89362 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (20 Jun 2014 13:16:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:16:04 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: standards, question, comment Posted-Date: 20 Jun 2014 09:16:04 EDT 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:1265 X-Original-Bytes: 1878 Hi, We are in a great era of infinite languages and sure standardizations. I myself keep studying a same few standards whenever there is free time. Some of the noticeable aspect about standards is that most of them tend to follow the same format: grammar in BNF, semantics in documentation. This is the pattern throughout. Therefore I am curious to know if there are other interesting formatting of language standards or language definitions such that the pattern is different? This sounds crazy but language designers tend to be geeky hence the curiousity. Sincerely, Seima Rao. [People have tried lots of other definition schemes over the years, like railroad diagrams in some Fortran standards and VDL in PL/I. BNF+text seems to be a workable balance between formalisms and readability. The PL/I standard was notably opaque, and its authors said "you don't have to understand it, just implement it" to which the answer was "yeah, bugs and all." -John]