> If it's the last grammar you put up, it is unabiguous which is good.
> And, yes, it doesn't allow
>  >p1 b and >p2 c
> I can live with that. Especially, since
>  >p1 b and/a>p2 c
> would be ambiguous - and hard to read. To achive this with Alan's
> grammar you would have to use
>  >p1 and/a (>p2 c)

Can parsers have a rule (not in the BNF) that makes /a>b always a single
modifier, rather than a modifier and a prefix?

Making /a >b=c a parse error, but it would be in the BNF anyway as it's
not ()ed, so you're not losing anything?

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I