On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
> The problem is that EBNF is so fundamental, it is important to find a good
> notation of it.
Bison will already need an alternative for {}.
> > There are only so many characters on the
> > keyboard.
>
> Well, Unicode has some 100000 plus characters, and one might substitute
> poor-mans-ASCII for some of them.
Do you have a specific proposal in mind?
> > I suspect that using [] in a grammar to mean optional is not nearly as
> > common.
>
> I think it is quite common, in fact.
I don't mean to say it isn't. I mean to say that it's less common than
(), and we have to pick something.
