Re: Repetition syntax

On 03/12/2025 16:08, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote:
> Hello again,
> I thought I’d see if I could summarize the proposals that I’ve seen
> so far on this thread. Here’s my list (I’ve used 3 and 5 as stand-
> ins for any arbitrary number):
> 
> |---+-------------+-----------------+----------------------|
> | 0 | a, b*, c    | a, b*, c,       | a, b ** ",", c       |
> |---+-------------+-----------------+----------------------|
> | 1 | a, b<3>, c  | a, b<3,5>, c    | a, b <<3,5>> ",", c  |
> | 2 | a, b#3,c    | a, b#3,5, c     | a, b ##3,5 ",", c    |
> | 3 | a, b&(3), c | a, b&(3,5), c   | a, b &&(3,5) ",", c  |
> | 4 | a, b 3 *, c | a, b 3 * 5, c   | a, b 3 ** 5 ",", c   |
> | 5 | a, b x 3, c | a, b x (3,5), c | a, b xx (3,5) ",", c |
> |---+-------------+-----------------+----------------------|

Thank you, that's very clear.

My vote would go for #1, purely on the basis that I think it's A Good
Idea™ to delimit the counter fore and aft without a herald.

> I think the proposals in rows 4 and 5 are impractical. I think
> they’re too confusing for users and they’re also too confusing for
> the grammar. Using a delimiter that might be a name character would
> be much harder to make work unambiguously in the iXML grammar for
> iXML.
Those of us used to LaTeX would of course be happy with a,*3b,c 
a,*3-5b,c and a,**3-5b,c 😱

Peter

Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2025 16:37:33 UTC