LDT: a language definition technique

Authors:
Adrian Johnstone;Elizabeth Scott;Mark van den Brand
Affiliations:
Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK;Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK;Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Den Dolech, Postbus, MB Eindhoven, Netherlands
Venue:
Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications
Year:
2011

Citing 10
Cited 1

The syntax definition formalism SDF—reference manual—

ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Compiling language definitions: the ASF+SDF compiler

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
The theory of parsing, translation, and compiling

The theory of parsing, translation, and compiling
Toward an engineering discipline for grammarware

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)
Better extensibility through modular syntax

Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation
The TXL source transformation language

Science of Computer Programming - The fourth workshop on language descriptions, tools, and applications (LDTA'04)
The Definitive ANTLR Reference: Building Domain-Specific Languages

The Definitive ANTLR Reference: Building Domain-Specific Languages
GLL Parsing

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Tear-Insert-Fold grammars

Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications
Translator generation using ART

SLE'10 Proceedings of the Third international conference on Software language engineering

MDE basics with a DSL focus

SFM'12 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication, and Software Systems: formal methods for model-driven engineering

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

We establish a semantics for building grammars from a modularised specification in which modules are able to delete individual productions from imported nonterminals. Our goal is to allow precise answers to the question: 'what character level language does this grammar generate' in the face of difficult issues such as the mutual embedding of languages that have different whitespace and commenting conventions. Our technique is to automatically generate a character level grammar from grammars written at token level in the conventional way; the grammars is constructed from modules each of which may have its own whitespace convention. Modules have import and export lists, and productions may be deleted nonterminals upon import. We conclude with a discussion of a concrete syntax which we use as the input language to our parser generator.