Two related questions:

1. Do the EBNF statements scattered throughout the D specification form a complete description of the D grammar?

2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?

Paul

Paul D Anderson wrote:
> Two related questions:
> 
> 1. Do the EBNF statements scattered throughout the D specification form a complete description of the D grammar?
> 

no

> 2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?
> 

kind.

As for part 1, the grammar is incomplete and wrong, but only in a few tiny places. I'm working on fixing them and am going to submit a patch to Walter in a few days. This is a result of something connected with part 2; I have a sed script that extracts the grammar from the HTML and converts it to EBNF (or a dialect there of) I'll release it if anyone is interested.

> Paul
> 

BCS wrote:
> Paul D Anderson wrote:
> 
>> 2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?
> 
> I have a sed script that extracts the grammar from the HTML and converts it to EBNF (or a dialect there of) I'll release it if anyone
> is interested.

Of course!

Mention it in Announcements when you've put it somewhere!

Georg Wrede wrote:
> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Paul D Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?
>>
>>
>> I have a sed script that extracts the grammar from the HTML and converts it to EBNF (or a dialect there of) I'll release it if anyone
>> is interested.
> 
> 
> Of course!
> 
> Mention it in Announcements when you've put it somewhere!

ok. ETA: __ days

== Quote from BCS (BCS@pathlink.com)'s article
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> > BCS wrote:
> >
> >> Paul D Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?
> >>
> >>
> >> I have a sed script that extracts the grammar from the HTML and converts it to EBNF (or a dialect there of) I'll release it if anyone is interested.
> >
> >
> > Of course!
> >
> > Mention it in Announcements when you've put it somewhere!
> ok. ETA: __ days

Out of curiosity, is the grammar in the docs complete and correct?  I remember that it didn't used to be, but there's been a bunch of work on it since then.


Sean

Reply to Sean,

> == Quote from BCS (BCS@pathlink.com)'s article
> 
>> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> 
>>> BCS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Paul D Anderson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Is there a "non-scattered" version of the grammar available?
>>>>> 
>>>> I have a sed script that extracts the grammar from the HTML and
>>>> converts it to EBNF (or a dialect there of) I'll release it if
>>>> anyone is interested.
>>>> 
>>> Of course!
>>> 
>>> Mention it in Announcements when you've put it somewhere!
>>> 
>> ok. ETA: __ days
>> 
> Out of curiosity, is the grammar in the docs complete and correct?  I
> remember that it didn't used to be, but there's been a bunch of work
> on it since then.
> 
> Sean
> 

compleat, I haven't a clue. Correct, I have a list of about 6-10 (small) errors that I need to fix, so No. As to if that will match what DMD does, again, I don't know. (but I have a feeling, I'm going to find out dang quick as soon as I find time to start looking.)