From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-30 18:01:15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Williams" <anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden]>
> Joel de Guzman writes:
> > Is there a (E)BNF definition for LaTeX?
> I doubt it, as macros can change the meanings of each and every character that
> is read subsequent to the invocation of the macro. You can actually make TeX
> take XML as input by preloading a set of macros.
> > If so, where can
> > I find it? And also, how good is the definition? Not
> > like C++ I hope.
> > May I also add the requirement that the target language should be
> > --> formally defined in (E)BNF
> Why? I presume for the following:
> > --> easily parsable
> Still why? If there are existing tools to convert the output, or we can write
> something that does (e.g. use LaTeX itself to generate other stuff, much as
> TeX4ht does), why does the language have to be parsable with a generic parser.
Because I want to write tools that inputs and/or outputs the
target language, and I want to be able to do it as painlessly
In this day and age, why would anyone want to standardize on
a language that has no formal specification?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk