grammar

I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of how Python works, and I've been looking at the grammar shown at http://docs.python.org/3.3/reference/grammar.html . I notice it says you would have to change parsermodule.c also, but truthfully I'm just not following what's going on here. I understand that a grammar is a specification for how to read the language, but...I can't even tell what this is written in. It looks almost like Python but then it isn't. I'm looking to get a better understanding of this specification and how it is used internally by Python to....do things. What depends on it (the

I'm a C and C++ programmer trying to get started with Objective-C. I'm really bewildered, though, by the apparent total absence of a standards document for the language and standard library. I can understand that there's no ISO standard, but is there no reference document at all? And how is it that nobody seems very concerned about this state of affairs? (Admittedly, it's hard to Google for such a thing, because "reference", "document", and "standard" are all overloaded terms. So it's possible that I've just missed something critical.) This question gets close to asking the same thing: Where

I have a task to write a (toy) parser for a (toy) grammar using OCaml and not sure how to start (and proceed with) this problem. Here's a sample Awk grammar: type ('nonterm, 'term) symbol = N of 'nonterm | T of 'term;; type awksub_nonterminals = Expr | Term | Lvalue | Incrop | Binop | Num;; let awksub_grammar = (Expr, function | Expr -> [[N Term; N Binop; N Expr]; [N Term]] | Term -> [[N Num]; [N Lvalue]; [N Incrop; N Lvalue]; [N Lvalue; N Incrop]; [T"("; N Expr; T")"]] | Lvalue -> [[T"$"; N Expr]] | Incrop -> [[T"++"]; [T"--"]] | Binop -> [[T"+"]; [T"-"]] | Num -> [[T"0"]; [T"1"]; [T"2"]; [T

I'm looking for the C grammar in GCC source code, more specifically for the grammar in the yacc/bison form. Found the C grammar in Yacc specification in the GCC version 3.3 in the file "c-parse.y" You will not find a C grammar yacc/bison file within the current GCC source code. It was done in the past, before the egcs fork stuff. I cannot give you the exact version and location, but i can tell you that it should be in the 2.x release The current version of GCC has its own C parser GCC of version 4.3 did not contain explicitly written C grammar. Parsing and semantical analysis were performed

I did not understand how a unambiguous grammar is derived from a ambiguous grammar? Consider the example on site: Example . How was the grammar derived is confusing to me. Can anyone please guide me ? The example has two grammars: Ambiguous: E → E + E | E ∗ E | (E) | a Unambiguous: E → E + T | T T → T ∗ F | F F → (E) | a The unambiguous grammar was derived from the ambiguous one using information not specified in the ambiguous grammar: The operator '*' binds tighter than the operator '+'. Both the operators '*' and '+' are left associative. Without the external information, there is no way to

For an online project I'm working on, I am looking for a open source grammar checker. I have searched Google, with some good results ( http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/ , etc), but I am wondering what all of you think about this topic. I need this to be able to be used online, versus desktop based, but this is the only real specification I have. If it has a built-in spell checker, that would be a plus, but I can always use another project for that purpose. Thanks for any help. LanguageTool should fit the bill: http://www.languagetool.org/ try polishmywriting.com (now afterthedeadline.com) I

I am in need of parsing a small subset of English for one of my project, described as a context-free grammar with (1-level) feature structures ( example ) and I need to do it efficiently . Right now I'm using NLTK 's parser which produces the right output but is very slow. For my grammar of ~450 fairly ambiguous non-lexicon rules and half a million lexical entries, parsing simple sentences can take anywhere from 2 to 30 seconds, depending it seems on the number of resulting trees. Lexical entries have little to no effect on performance. Another problem is that loading the (25MB) grammar