Backus Naur Form is a great standard, which has adaptions in many niches. I think it is what most technical references use.
Free Online Dictionary of Computing's Entry http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=backus-naur+form Appendix on Extended BNF on XML.com from 10/3/98 http://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/10/guide5.html Some info on John Backus http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Backus.html I hope these links don't fail, they came from googling "backus form"... cheers -ben On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, larry a price wrote: > I've noticed that this is one of the hardest things to teach to people > when dealing with any type of string manipulation environment. > > I really like the way the O'reilly books handle it because they use a > standard uniform convention that makes a lot of sense. > > should we try to record the conventions we use to explain scripts to each > other so that when someone is confused we can point them to a wikipage > and say "that's how we do it.". > Or should we just let standards evolve t meet situations as needed? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "slide" to www.euglug.org and benb.org ~ shanti ~ in lake'ch, my kin... Finally, I (this text) would be delighted to be included, in whole or in part, in your next discussion of self-reference. With that in mind, please allow me to appologize in advance for infecting you.
