[TriPython] A question of recursion and nested parsing

[Scott G. Hall]

When I learned language parsing (early 1980's) and worked as a research grunt on
the C Standards Committee (for Howard at Computer Innovations and the C86-Plus
compiler...), we used a tree model to represent syntax:

Drawing Tree Diagrams: Problems and Suggestions
<http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/29.pdf>
(http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/29.pdf)

also used for YACC syntax (Yet Another Compiler Compiler -- a parsing generator)
which is in-turn based on Linguistics parsing trees:

Syntax - Drawing tree diagrams of ambiguous sentences generated by a CFG
<https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9706/drawing-tree-diagrams-of-ambiguous-sentences-generated-by-a-cfg>
(https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9706/drawing-tree-diagrams-of-ambiguous-sentences-generated-by-a-cfg)

Then there's always the /Backus-Naur Form/ (Backus Normal Form) that was used in
the late 1980's and early 1990's by /Dr. Dobb's Journal/ and the /C/C++ User's
Journal/:

Notations for context-free grammers: BNF, Syntax Diagrams, EBNF
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Epjj/bnf/bnf.html>
(http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pjj/bnf/bnf.html
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Epjj/bnf/bnf.html>)

The /railroad/ syntax diagrams seem intriguing though. 

- sgh

On 09/15/2017 12:00 PM, David Burton wrote:
>    Parsing problems are always**best solved by first creating a formal syntax
>    specification. There are no non-trivial exceptions to that rule. You
>    should not write any code until you have done that.
>    If you haven't done a formal syntax spec then you do not yet fully
>    understand the problem you're working on, and you should not be writing
>    code.
>
>      Sometimes it helps to know what you're doing.
>      - Quotations from Prof. Kwan(sp?)
>
>    My preference is for Pascal-esque syntax diagrams (a/k/a "railroad
>    diagrams"), like these:
>    [1]http://primepuzzle.com/tp2/syntax-diagrams.html
>    [2]https://www.google.com/search?q=%22syntax+diagram%22

-- 
Scott G. Hall
Raleigh, NC, USA
ph. 919-624-5973
Scott at HallComm-Inc.Com

-------------- next part --------------
   When I learned language parsing (early 1980's) and worked as a research
   grunt on the C Standards Committee (for Howard at Computer Innovations and
   the C86-Plus compiler...), we used a tree model to represent syntax:

   [1]Drawing Tree Diagrams: Problems and Suggestions
   ([2]http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/29.pdf)

   also used for YACC syntax (Yet Another Compiler Compiler -- a parsing
   generator) which is in-turn based on Linguistics parsing trees:

   [3]Syntax - Drawing tree diagrams of ambiguous sentences generated by a
   CFG
   ([4]https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9706/drawing-tree-diagrams-of-ambiguous-sentences-generated-by-a-cfg)

   Then there's always the Backus-Naur Form (Backus Normal Form) that was
   used in the late 1980's and early 1990's by Dr. Dobb's Journal and the
   C/C++ User's Journal:

   [5]Notations for context-free grammers: BNF, Syntax Diagrams, EBNF
   ([6]http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pjj/bnf/bnf.html)

   The railroad syntax diagrams seem intriguing though.

   - sgh

   On 09/15/2017 12:00 PM, David Burton wrote:

    Parsing problems are always**best solved by first creating a formal syntax
    specification. There are no non-trivial exceptions to that rule. You
    should not write any code until you have done that.
    If you haven't done a formal syntax spec then you do not yet fully
    understand the problem you're working on, and you should not be writing
    code.

      Sometimes it helps to know what you're doing.
      - Quotations from Prof. Kwan(sp?)

    My preference is for Pascal-esque syntax diagrams (a/k/a "railroad
    diagrams"), like these:
    [1][7]http://primepuzzle.com/tp2/syntax-diagrams.html
    [2][8]https://www.google.com/search?q=%22syntax+diagram%22

 --
 Scott G. Hall
 Raleigh, NC, USA
 ph. 919-624-5973
 [9]Scott at HallComm-Inc.Com

References

   Visible links
   1. http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/29.pdf
   2. http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/29.pdf
   3. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9706/drawing-tree-diagrams-of-ambiguous-sentences-generated-by-a-cfg
   4. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9706/drawing-tree-diagrams-of-ambiguous-sentences-generated-by-a-cfg
   5. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Epjj/bnf/bnf.html
   6. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Epjj/bnf/bnf.html
   7. http://primepuzzle.com/tp2/syntax-diagrams.html
   8. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22syntax+diagram%22
   9. mailto:Scott at hallcomm-inc.com