Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

> > Coming out of the meeting, it seemed like like we needed a more detailed
> > abstract syntax for talking about RIF without getting bogged down in
> > serialization details.  (Also, for talking about serialization details,
> > without getting bogged down in fundamentals of the language.)
> 
> Sandro,
> Can you please formulate what exactly is the problem using more
> concrete terms?  What is the problem with BNF syntax that we use and
> how does your sketch resolves that?

I guess it's mostly an issue of software engineering practice.

The BNF is like a data structure where most of the fields are not named.
That's probably okay as long as the grammar (or data structure, if
you're thinking about it before it's serialized [marshalled] or after
it's unserialized [unmarshalled]) is small and simple, as in the core.

But when I start to think about all the ways the grammar will be added
to by various extensions, I am reminded about how as projects grow it's
important for the underlying data structures to be very easy to
understand.  I want all the parts to be named, at least, and probably
each part should have it's own documentation.

Does that help explain the motivation?   I also think it'll be important,
when we're designing the serialization style, for that work be isolated
by a good interface from the discussions about the abstract language.

    -- Sandro