On Tue, 24 May 2011, Francis Galiegue wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 18:45, SF Markus Elfring > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But as I mentioned in another mail, EBNF is just NOT the way to go in > >> order to get people to begin to use Coccinelle on a larger scale -- > >> people who read and _write_ C are orders of magnitude more numerous > >> than people who can read EBNF - let alone write it. > > > > Would you like to include any syntax diagrams in your documentation > > approach? > > > > http://www-cgi.uni-regensburg.de/~brf09510/syntax.html > > http://karmin.ch/ebnf/index > > http://dotnet.jku.at/applications/Visualizer/ > > http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~thiemann/haskell/ebnf2ps/ > > > > Regards, > > Markus > > > > Very useful indeed. I'll try and make one of these tools work on the > existing grammar specification...
OK, if you like. I find it hard to see what is the improvement though. The result is still going to be enormous. Also I believe that our grammar is parameterized (at least the implementation is), which I'm not sure that these approaches support. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
