- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:10:12 -0700
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
I think they are on balance an improvement, but I think I would
show the rewriting of f+sep as
f+sep ⇒ f-plus-sep
-f-plus-sep: f, (sep, f)*.
Michael
> On 2,Dec2021, at 2:57 AM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> 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
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2021 19:09:37 UTC