Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 20:33:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <viqaqn$12goo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
 <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidnuj$1aned$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ttbpqzm1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vie0j5$1g968$1@dont-email.me>
 <vieun5$1mcnr$3@dont-email.me> <vihamj$2cflq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vihili$2f79m$1@dont-email.me> <vihu63$2ipg0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vii3kq$2kmc8$1@dont-email.me> <vikqvf$3fhce$1@dont-email.me>
 <jNm3P.7909$XuU6.3431@fx40.iad> <vinkbv$8r4i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vinm3p$9auh$1@dont-email.me> <vinqt2$bede$1@dont-email.me>
 <wK%3P.63775$vLg2.30456@fx17.iad> <viqa4g$124jc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 20:33:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="710b50e4e72628794832f3555de01104";
	logging-data="1131288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1L09jW0DvFz30969yWYGj"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZGLCzFHH6upB8EYq9fgpg/gK254=
In-Reply-To: <viqa4g$124jc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Bytes: 2624

On 04.12.2024 20:21, BGB wrote:
> On 12/4/2024 10:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> How can you write a correct recursive descent parser without a
>> formal grammar (at least on paper) for the language being parsed?
> 
> It is usually a thing of pattern matching the next N tokens, based on
> the structure of the language.
> 
> You can write or reference a syntax in BNF or EBNF or similar, but it is
> not necessary, and some languages (like C) may contain things that can't
> be fully expressed via an BNF (say, for example, things that depend on
> prior typedefs, etc).

Knowledge of the theory of formal languages would give you answers
concerning what a Context Free Grammar can do and what not, for what
parts you need, say, attributed grammars, contexts, and so on. - So
that's not really an argument against formal grammars if we discuss
syntax.

(Algol 68 of course went a step further with van Wijngaarden Grammar.
Just to mention another sort and a further step of advanced grammar
concepts.)

Janis

> [snip rest; tldr]