Re: Alternative syntaxes for the prolog

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:
>> I’d be reluctant to define the prolog as exclusively a set of name-value pairs. It’s the obvious place to put any structures that apply to an entire grammar.
>
> This makes me worried. It means we're trying to design something that we don't know what we're designing for.
>
> I'm not a fan of the prolog as it is currently formulated, but if we don't know what it is meant to be, I don't see how we can design it at all.

That feels a bit disingenous. It seems entirely reasonable to say we want a version identifier and we want to leave ourselves space for future growth. It isn’t necessary (or possible) to design everything up front.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica