Re: EBNF and its not-so-usefulness
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Chris Angus wrote:
> ...
> I am in no way suggesting that any language may be completely defined
> in EBNF.
But why not, Chris? A language can most assuredly be completely defined
in EBNF, assuming that by a language you mean the sentences generated by
the grammar expressed by the EBNF definition.
> Not all sentences that parse according to the grammar are necessary
> legal or 'meaningful' in some wider sense.
Certainly they should be in any clear and useful sense. For formal
languages like KIF --- at least, those with a semantics that has no
truth-value gaps --- every sentence generated by the grammar should have
a well-defined meaning in every model.
Regards,
-chris m
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764