Re: [cocci] EBNF for Coccinelle file formats?

[Michele Martone <michelemartone@users.sourceforge.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1008 bytes --]

On 20241111@18:01, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Will grammar descriptions become available as extended Backus–Naur
> >> form for involved input files?
> >
> > Such descriptions would have half a thousand of productions
> It is probably unclear how big a related grammar would become.
> > and still be incomplete,
If you
 grep '^[a-z_]*:'
through the *.mly files you get a few hundred non-terminals,
each with a handful of production rules.

In a few words: LOTS of rules.

> Can such a development concern be clarified better?
> 
> >                          because missing token-level
> > manipulations, which escape that notation.
> 
> Which details would you find problematic so far?
As I wrote: 
 "because missing token-level manipulations, which escape
  that notation." ("that" referring to BNF forms)

> > Would that be desirable?
> 
> Would you dare to look for alternatives besides tools like
> “ocamlyacc” and “Menhir”?
Not now: not enough resources for that.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]