Talk:Parse EBNF/Tests: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(correction for an example?)
 
(I guess because it never defines a production for ''bar''.)
Line 4: Line 4:


is not a valid EBNF grammar, according to the accepted definition?
is not a valid EBNF grammar, according to the accepted definition?

: I guess because it never defines a production for ''bar''. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 01:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:51, 9 September 2011

Why the example provided at the bottom of the page

{ foo = bar . }

is not a valid EBNF grammar, according to the accepted definition?

I guess because it never defines a production for bar. --Kernigh 01:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)