You are perfectly right in remarking that the implementation of a language has non-CFL aspects, but I never claimed otherwise.
As you mention yourself, the grammar which is represented in the YACC/Bison file is CLF, and that is exactly what I claimed.
Besides grammar there is indeed semantics (or implementation as I called it), and that is a different matter indeed. Only I was not talking about that, so please don't suggest I'm claiming things I'm not.
Besides specifying the grammar one has to make it "do" do something using some programming languagge, and hence one is specifying the semantics in some RE (recursive enumerable) formalism.
Incidently, it would be weird if one could get recursive enumerability with a pure CLF, wouldn't it? So no, I'm not claiming that.
I'm familiar with the Dragon, having implemented a number of parsers for commercial applications.
Regards, -gjb-
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: original definition vs final language
by gjb
in thread original definition vs final language
by dystrophy
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |