Use EBNF notation to describe the syntax of the following language constructs. A. A Java return statement, which could be either a return keyword followed by a semicolon, or a return keyword followed an expression then followed by a semicolon. Assume the grammar for expression has been defined as expr-> e
B. A Python return statement, either a return keyword, or return one or more expressions separated by comma.
C. Based on your syntax definition in (b), is return x+y; a valid Python return statement?

Following are the description to the given points:

Explanation:

To resolve basic design restrictions, EBNF has also been developed.This principle was its lack of support can identify repeatings easily. It implies that popular BNF models, like the description of a sequence of replicable elements, are complicated and rely on contra intuitive logical math.

To set a list of words divided by commas (e.g. john, coffee, logic) for instance, we would like to say something like "a list is a word accompanied by a few commas or terms." Through EBNF, they may say so. However, there have been no "many" alternatives in the standard BNF format. So, to describe something such as "a list is a term or a number accompanied by a pair with notation and script," you have to say the same thing. Which functions, although it is difficult, as it specifies a variety of lists instead of a specific list.

Essentially, "john, coffee, logic is John's list, accompanied by coffees or, and logic" would be the earlier link.  That's why in Option (a):

The return statement in Java is:

return ('”‘ (~[“] | ” [”e‘])*);

In option (c), it is the valid statement.