Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

> > > Coming out of the meeting, it seemed like like we needed a more detailed
> > > abstract syntax for talking about RIF without getting bogged down in
> > > serialization details.  (Also, for talking about serialization details,
> > > without getting bogged down in fundamentals of the language.)
> > 
> > Sandro,
> > Can you please formulate what exactly is the problem using more
> > concrete terms?  What is the problem with BNF syntax that we use and
> > how does your sketch resolves that?
> 
> I guess it's mostly an issue of software engineering practice.
> 
> The BNF is like a data structure where most of the fields are not named.
> That's probably okay as long as the grammar (or data structure, if
> you're thinking about it before it's serialized [marshalled] or after
> it's unserialized [unmarshalled]) is small and simple, as in the core.
> 
> But when I start to think about all the ways the grammar will be added
> to by various extensions, I am reminded about how as projects grow it's
> important for the underlying data structures to be very easy to
> understand.  I want all the parts to be named, at least, and probably
> each part should have it's own documentation.
> 
> Does that help explain the motivation?   I also think it'll be important,
> when we're designing the serialization style, for that work be isolated
> by a good interface from the discussions about the abstract language.

I think what you are trying to define is an ontology for rule parts
(or maybe a UML-like diagram). This is fine and useful, but I don't think
it is a substitute for a concise BNF. Also, I don't agree that BNF's parts
are unnamed. They look perfectly named to me (by nonterminals).


	--michael

Received on Sunday, 12 November 2006 05:40:44 UTC