The DOI matches its Crossref record.
What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions?
Open accessAbstract
The population of programming languages is steadily growing, and there is no end of this growth in sight. Many language definitions appear in journals, many are found in technical reports, and perhaps an even greater number remains confined to proprietory circles. After frequent exposure to these definitions, one cannot fail to notice the lack of “common denominators.” The only widely accepted fact is that the language structure is defined by a syntax. But even notation for syntactic description eludes any commonly agreed standard form, although the underlying ancestor is invariably the Backus-Naur Form of the Algol 60 report. As variations are often only slight, they become annoying for their very lack of an apparent motivation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The functional data model and the data languages DAPLEX
Shipman, D. W. (1981) · ACM Transactions on Database Systems · doi:10.1145/319540.319561 · Cited by 913
Grune, D., & Jacobs, C. J. H. (2008) · Monographs in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68954-8 · Cited by 290
Evolution of Self-Organized Task Specialization in Robot Swarms
Ferrante, E., Turgut, A. E., Duéñez-Guzmán, E., Dorigo, M., & Wenseleers, T. (2015) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004273 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Wirth, N.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1977-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 822-823
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2000061490
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/359863.359883
- The paper
- Wirth, N. (1977). What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions? Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/359863.359883
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
