Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Alpert Herb Petrofsky
(11 Jan 2005 21:03 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Bradd W. Szonye
(11 Jan 2005 21:19 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(11 Jan 2005 22:29 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Taylor Campbell
(12 Jan 2005 00:10 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Bradd W. Szonye
(12 Jan 2005 00:13 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Bradd W. Szonye
(12 Jan 2005 00:16 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(17 Jan 2005 03:03 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting Alpine Petrofsky (12 Jan 2005 00:22 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 01:45 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 02:18 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 14:11 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 14:29 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting Alpine Petrofsky 12 Jan 2005 00:22 UTC
I wrote: > you need a formal specification too, in BNF, as in r5rs. Here's a stab at how to do this: The r5rs formal syntax is extended by making the following modifications: -- In r5rs 7.1.1, -- For each X in token, identifier, variable, boolean, character, string, and number, change the name of entity <X> to <raw X>. -- Add "#;" to the <raw token> rule. -- In r5rs 7.1.2, -- Add this rule: <commented datum> ---> #; <datum> -- For each X in token, identifier, variable, boolean, character, string, and number, add a rule: <X> --> <commented datum>* <raw X> -- In all of the production rules of 7.1.2 through 7.1.5, every literal entity like "(", ")", "quote", or "lambda" is defined to mean the corresponding <token> or <identifier>, not a <raw token> or <raw identifier>. I encourage anyone who would like to see different behavior standardized to provide a formal specification of what he desires. -al