On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:48:35PM +0400, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > 2014-10-01 15:23 GMT+04:00 v4hn <me@v4hn.de>: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:59:10AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > In the age of ubiquitous internet, I feel that the entire Formal > > > Grammars chapter simply doesn't belong in a printed book. > > > > > > Does anyone disagree? > > > > Yes. Please leave it in. The book is called _C_LL and the formal > > grammar is _definitely_ part of the language. [...] > > > > I also do hope the YACC grammar will be replaced by a PEG grammar > > in the next version. So, I just had another look at the relevant chapter. pe'i It is, indeed, important to keep the formal grammar within the book. However, that does not mean we have to have two representations of the very same thing in there. The EBNF grammar should be enough, so I agree that (by pages) most of the "formal grammars" chapter (i.e. the yacc grammar) could (and probably should) be removed. This would include all the rule numbering in the EBNF grammar that references the yacc rules. > > If people feel really uncomfortable because there is no explanation > > of the syntax of the grammar description, then we should _add_ one > > instead of removing the grammar. > > Exactly, we should add one. Who will do it? > If no one then it's of absolutely no use and should return to the book when > it gets that explanation. Otherwise it's still not Complete. Turns out the EBNF rules are explained and even described as "human readable". So there's no problem here. v4hn
Attachment:
pgpNQfY1ddYDt.pgp
Description: PGP signature