[fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Wayne Sherman]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> In short: To make a EBNF grammar which is 100% correct is not so simple
> and will make the scheme extremely difficult to understand for a reader.
> So I prefer to present a simpler version, and mention some limitations
>  only in the text
...
> There are simply so many exceptions and limitations that the 100% correct
> diagram would be incomprehensible and needlessly complicated if you tried to
> capture every aspect for the full 100%.

If the EBNF grammar is only a guide provided as documentation for a
human reader then you might want that.  But if the EBNF grammar is
used to drive a parser then it needs to be fully complete, accurate,
and machine readable (see below).

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Anyway, I strive to make the syntax complete and correct. When it is ready,
> I can send it in to be added as an Appendix to the Language Reference
> manual. I have an ebfn-driven general (back-parsing) parser that already
> works for Oberon-0 end UCSD-Pascal. So, the ebnf can be tested.

Is your parser able to read and validate the EBNF grammar itself for
syntax and correctness (i.e. the grammar is complete and consistent) ?
 Can your parser be used with the EBNF grammar to parse and validate
Pascal code and report syntax problems?