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