Certain assemblers form their integer literals in the following way. Binary literals consist of one or more binary digits (0, 1) followed by the letter B; e.g., 10110B. Octal literals consist of one or more octal digits (0 through 7) followed by the letter Q (since O looks too much like 0); e.g., 1234567Q. Hexadecimal literals consist of at least one decimal digit (0 through 9), followed by zero or more hexadecimal digits(0 through 9 and A through F) followed by the letter H; e.g., 0ABCDEFH.Decimal literals consist of at least one decimal digit optionally followed by the letter D; e.g., 1234. (a) Draw the state diagram o fan NFA (not a DFA) for these literal forms; you may use -transitions, you dont need to use Thompsons construction.

(b) Give a regular expression for the literals; you may use .

(c) Modula-3 based literals have the form base digits (e.g., 2_11111111, 8_377, 16_FF, 255 are equivalent integer literals). Why is the Modula3 form preferable to the assembler form introduced here, from the standpoint of a compiler (or assembler) writer?