LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2002

ZNG May 2002

Subject:

Re: bnf for cql

From:

Alan Kent <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 24 May 2002 11:24:19 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:32:57PM -0400, Ray denenberg wrote:
> So the bnf would instead be:
>
> CqlString ::= Term |  Term Boolean CqlString | "("Term Boolean CqlString")"
> Term ::=  [IndexQualifier Relationship] SearchTerm
> IndexQualifier ::= [IndexSet.] IndexId
>
> IndexSet ::= SimpleString
> Relationship ::=   "=" | "<" |  ">"  (etc)
> IndexId ::= SimpleString
> SearchTerm::= FunnyString
> Boolean::= 'AND', 'OR' (etc)
>
> Does that help?  Putting parenthesis around "term operator term" should
> resolve the ambiguity question (though perhaps not the way you would
> prefer).  Whether we still need parenthesis (or something) around term is
> still a question.
>
> --Ray

No, it does not address the ambiguity of AND/OR/NOT precedence.
Also the way the grammar is written you can only do one level of
nesting of parenthesis.

The normal thing to do is have a series of rules, one rule defined
per precedence level (in maths + and - have the same precendence
so have a single rule which allows either symbol). The higher the
rule, the looser the binding. Then at the bottom level, you tend to
allow parenthesis and then mention the highest rule again in the
parenthesis.

    term ::= factor *( add-op factor )      -- loose binding
    add-op ::= "+" | "-"
    factor ::= primary *( mul-op primary )  -- tighter binding
    mul-op ::= "*" | "/" | "%"
    primary ::= constant | "(" term ")"     -- loops back to top.

So

    a+b*c

expands using

    term -> factor(a) "+" factor(b*c)
    factor(a) -> primary(a)
    primary(a) -> constant(a)
    factor(b*c) -> primary(b) "*" primary(c)
    primary(b) -> constant(b)
    primary(c) -> constant(c)

whereas

    (a+b)*c

expands using

    term -> factor((a+b)*c)
    factor((a+b)*c) -> primary((a+b)) "*" primary(c)
    primary((a+b)) -> "(" term(a+b) ")"
    term(a+b) -> factor(a) "+" factor(b)
    factor(a) -> primary(a)
    primary(a) -> constant(a)
    factor(b) -> primary(b)
    primary(b) -> constant(b)
    primary(c) -> constant(c)

So the grammar only defines one possible legal expansion, getting
the precendence of operators right.

Most systems don't give AND and OR the same precendence. The grammar
you gave does not specify whether AND or OR binds more tightly.
So it could either mean you want left to right semantics (like + and -),
but thats bad because AND and OR are not associative like + and -,
otherwise you have to specify the precendence as prose. Using the
grammar is better because its more precise.

Grammars are not for humans to read - they are for programmers.
Normal humans can read examples and prose.

Sorry, I might have got carried away here!

Alan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager