# 6.2. Context-Free Grammars Part 2¶

## 6.2.1. Ambiguity¶

### 6.2.1.1. Ambiguous Grammars (1)¶

### 6.2.1.2. Ambiguous Grammars (2)¶

This problem is again about determining how many parse trees a given string has in a given grammar.

### 6.2.1.3. Ambiguous Grammars (3)¶

This problem is once more about determining how many parse trees a given string has in a given grammar.

### 6.2.1.4. Ambiguous Grammars (4)¶

This problem will help you discover ambiguities in grammars as well as convince yourself that a grammar is not ambiguous.

## 6.2.2. Precedence Practice¶

## 6.2.3. Unambiguous grammar parse tree Example¶

### 6.2.3.1. Associativity¶

### 6.2.3.2. Precedence and Associativity¶

This problem illustrates how grammatical structure impacts the associativity property and order of precedence of arithmetic operators.

**Backus-Naur Form** of a grammar:

Nonterminals are enclosed in brackets \(<>\)For “\(\rightarrow\)” use instead “\(::=\)”

**Sample C++ Program:**:

```
main () {
int a; int b; int sum;
a = 40; b = 6; sum = a + b;
cout << "sum is "<< sum << endl;
}
```

**“Attempt” to write a CFG for C++ in BNF**
(Note: \(<\mbox{program}>\) is start symbol of grammar.)

etc., Must expand all nonterminals!

So a derivation of the program test would look like:

This problem asks you to provide a characterization in English of the language generated by a BNF grammar. After you finish it, there is one more problem about Extended Backus-Naur Form, which is described before the problem.

## 6.2.4. Extended BNF¶

The symbols we have used in our representation of grammars
collectively comprise what is known as *Backus-Naur Form* (BNF). In
*Extended Backus-Naur Form* (EBNF) we add five meta-symbols to those
already used in BNF notation:

Kleene closure operator \(*\), which means “zero or more”. Hence if \(<fn\_name>\) were a non-terminal representing a valid function name and \(<argument>\) were a non-terminal representing a valid argument, then the EBNF notation for function calls with zero or more arguments (with no commas between them) would be

\[<fn\_name> "(" <argument>* ")"\]Positive closure operator \(+\). The EBNF notation for function calls that must have at least one argument would be

\[<fn\_name> "(" <argument>+ ")"\]The two paired parenthesis symbols \(( \; )\), which are used for grouping. For example, if \(<positive\_number>\) were the non-terminal denoting a valid positive number, then the following EBNF would dictate that we

musthave a plus or minus sign preceding a number\[(+ | -) <positive\_number>\]

The “optional operator” \(?\), which specifies that you can have zero or one of whatever grammatical structure precedes the operator. For example, if our language allowed an optional plus or minus sign in front of a number, we would use the EBNF

\[(+ | -)? <positive\_number>\]

EBNF is used to reduce the number of productions a grammar needs to specify a language. However, it does not increase the expressive power of grammars, that is, any grammatical structure that can be expressed in EBNF can also be expressed in BNF if one is willing to use more productions.

This last problem is about the equivalence between a given BNF grammar (the same one as in part 4 above) and a smaller EBNF grammar.

**More on CFG for C++**

Last time we “attempted” to write a CFG for C++, it is possible to write a CFG that recognizes all syntactically correct C++ programs, but there is a problem that the CFG also accepts incorrect programs. For example, it can’t recognize that it is an error to declare the same variable twice, once as an integer and once as a char.

We can write a CFG \(G\) such that \(L(G) = \{ \mbox{syntactically correct C++ programs} \}\).

But note that \(\{ \mbox{semantically correct C++ programs} \} \subset L(G)\).

Another example: Can’t recognize if formal parameters match actual parameters in number and type:

declare: int Sum(int a, int b, int c) …call: newsum = Sum(x,y);