Re: Ambiguity (what else!?) question

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:50:50PM +0000, Bethan Tovey-Walsh scripsit:
> Seconding David's thanks for this useful distinction, Graydon. (Also,
> off-topic, but I find "fails to delight" paradoxically delightful.)

I cannot but feel pleased that this phrasing has proved effective!

(You're both welcome. I have been lucky enough to use iXML in production
so I might have more clarity on the subject just from experience.)

> It'll be interesting to see how introducing a negation operator (if we
> manage to do so) expands the class of problems for which iXML is a
> good solution. 

I am interested in a negation operator, I think it's potentially useful,
but a substantial constraint on "good solution" is "Can I debug this
when I come back to it after a year?" and (data point of one!) iXML
grammars as they already exist are horrid things to debug even after one
has spent the time to stuff the whole majestic expanse of the specific
grammar back into one's brain.

Debugging tools would to my mind be the most useful things for driving
iXML adoption. A processor switch to emit "this boils down to the
following" simplified versions of what one wrote where the switch knows
it's trying to help a would-be grammarian would be the first thing on my
personal list, but nigh-anything in the way of debugging help would
improve matters.

(By analogy to ancient days, a linter might be the way to go. I cannot
claim sufficient comprehension of the issues around writing such a thing
to have an informed opinion, but I do know that debugging iXML grammars
feels a lot like "segmentation fault, core dumped".)

So, anyway; I think iXML is already "who will use this?" limited. I
suspect that group could be expanded through tool support much more than
through expressiveness of the grammars.

-- Graydon


--  
Graydon Saunders  | graydonish@fastmail.com
Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg.
-- Deor  ("That passed, so may this.")

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2025 15:36:53 UTC