Re: Grammar analysis

Dorothy Hoskins <dorothy.hoskins@gmail.com> writes:
> My concern is loading that purpose on a specific character is rather
> esoteric.

I suppose. Maybe using ε or ∅ is a bit too cute. And neither is
straightforward to type on a standard keyboard.

We could reserve a name, but it shouldn’t be a name that users can
already use in a grammar. That means “empty” is out, for example.

There are a few ASCII punctuation characters left, but they’re precious
if we aren’t prepared to go outside of ASCII.

Some of the proposals on the table, like grammar inclusion, will need
more syntax. I guess we could grab a punctuation character as the marker
for those new items. We could take $ for example. The convention dollar
sign followed by a word could introduce a new bit of syntax.

That would allow us to say that “$empty” means “matches nothing”;
“$include” could mark the start of a grammar inclusion, etc.

Maybe “$” is a bit US-centric. I guess “&” is another possibility though
it’s already a markup character in XML so it feels like there’s some
potential for confusion.

Angle brackets are also available. <empty>? <include …>?

I dunno. I’m not filling myself with enthusiasm as I write this…

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica