Re: "Hints for implementors" section

I think they are certainly easier to read and understand.

Thanks,
Tom
On 2 Dec 2021, 10:37 +0000, John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>, wrote:
> 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