- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:44:59 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 23/03/15 21:06, Florian Rivoal wrote: > In an implementation, I agree with you that what you suggest is > better. However, in terms of language they accept, the two are > equivalent and the current approach makes the spec easier to write as > you note. Besides, the intermediate non terminals are not exposed or > reused anywhere. > > Since implementations can do the right thing and implement the more > efficient and equivalent grammar you suggest, is there any downside > in leaving the spec as it is, for readability reasons? Right, the two grammars are equivalent and so the change is only editorial. I don’t mind leaving it as-is, but keeping spec grammars LL(k) seemed to have been a goal in the past. Is it still? (Or was it really?) -- Simon Sapin
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 23:45:23 UTC