BNFs are suited to describing the "context-free portions" of a given grammer.. even a BNF for C is not quite complete as a 'label' which has been assigned as a function identifier is syntactically distinct from a label which has been assigned to a variable.
J is very context-sensitive.. any given name may represent a noun, a verb, and conjuction, etc which all have different syntactic requirements... the BNF alone cannot provide the whole story. - michael dykman On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Sean Stickle<[email protected]> wrote: > Very nice! > Regarding the warning at the top, that BNF is "not the most concise, nor > precise, way of specifying J's syntax". Verbosity is no worry to me, but is > the implication that a BNF spec of J is incomplete or inaccurate in some > important ways? If so, knowing those would be very helpful. > > Thanks for putting this together, > > Sean Stickle > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 16:37, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The URL is messed up. Should be >> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Backus–Naur%20Form< >> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur%20Form> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I have put up a draft copy of a BNF representation of J's syntax on the >> > jwki. >> > >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Backus–Naur%20Form >> > >> > If anyone has time, could you look it over, for silly obvious type >> errors? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -- >> > Raul >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- - michael dykman - [email protected] Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If they’re any good, you’ll have to ram them down their throats! Howard Aiken ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
