Re: Repetition syntax


> Otherwise × would work in #5 without the risk of using a letter x.

That would be extremely unkind to users! 

> It seems like the preferable solution is a fourth kind of brackets


If you mean a syntax that uses only brackets without some symbol standing as a "repetition" operator before them, I'm not convinced that it's entirely preferable,. I think I still prefer line 3 in the table, or something very like it. I particularly like the fact that it has a symbol as a counterpart to * and +, which I think makes it easier to understand the repetition when reading a grammar. I'm not going to die on this hill, but I prefer line 3 to line 1, which uses brackets without a preceding symbol. 

BTW


Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Dec 2025, at 22:51, Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> wrote:
> On 03/12/2025 18:57, Graydon Saunders wrote:
> [...]
>> Some symmetric substitution (for those willing to type the characters and not necessarily using guillemets, those are just me picking an example) would ALSO be proper syntax, that is, both `<` and `«` would work:
> 
> I assumed we are restricted to ASCII. Otherwise × would work in #5 without the risk of using a letter x.
> 
> Peter