Re: "Hints for implementors" section

Yes - I think they are improvements - it gets the essence of the + and 
sep forms quite succinctly

On 02/12/2021 09:57, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>
> In the current "Hints to implementors" section, it explains how to 
> translate the repetition constructs into simple constructs:
>
> Optional factor:
>
> f? ⇒ f-option
> -f-option: f; .
>
> Zero or more repetitions:
>
> f* ⇒ f-star
> -f-star: f, f-star; .
>
> One or more repetitions:
>
> f+ ⇒ f-plus
> -f-plus: f, f-star.
> -f-star: f, f-star; .
>
> One or more repetitions with separator:
>
> f+sep ⇒ f-plus-sep
> -f-plus-sep: f, sep-part-option.
> -sep-part-option: sep, f-plus-sep; .
>
> Zero or more repetitions with separator:
>
> f*sep ⇒ f-star-sep
> -f-star-sep: f-plus-sep; .
> -f-plus-sep: f, sep-part-option.
> -sep-part-option: sep, f-plus-sep; .
>
> This could be done shorter in the following way. Do you consider it an 
> improvement? (The first two are the same)
>
> Optional factor:
>
> f? ⇒ f-option
> -f-option: f; .
>
> Zero or more repetitions:
>
> f* ⇒ f-star
> -f-star: f, f-star; .
>
> One or more repetitions:
>
> f+ ⇒ f-plus
> -f-plus: f, f*.
>
> One or more repetitions with separator:
>
> f+sep ⇒ f-plus-sep
> -f-plus-sep: f, (sep, f-plus-sep)?.
>
> Zero or more repetitions with separator:
>
> f*sep ⇒ f-star-sep
> -f-star-sep: f+sep; .
> Steven 


-- 
*John Lumley* MA PhD CEng FIEE
john@saxonica.com
on behalf of Saxonica Ltd