Allen, Have you considered moving the spec drafting to a revision controlled system, such as git? Michael Smith maintains an annotated and hyperlinked version of ES5.1 here http://es5.github.com/. A system like this would certainly make your maintenance tasks easier, in addition to facilitating a simplified workfow for creating experimental versions.
Rick On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 12 October 2011 02:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > The experiments are shown > > in > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives.pdf > > This contains four versions of section 11.5.1 (Object literals). Each > > section is about 4 pages long and contains the same specification text, > but > > organized in slightly different ways. > > The first version is what is currently in the specification. All the > > semantics definitions are lumped together in a single "Semantics" section > in > > roughly the same order as the productions occur in the grammar. Each > > definition includes the grammar production it applies to so the order > > doesn't have any semantic significance. > > The second version regroups the semantic functions according to semantic > > function. First there are all the static semantic definitions for all > the > > productions. Then all the PropertyDefinitionList function definitions for > > the productions that define it, and so until finally there are the > > evaluation function definitions for all the productions. > > The third version is ordered just like the second version but it uses > > explicit subsection headings for each function group in order to make > them > > more visible. > > The four version orders everything by grammar production. It shows a > > production and immediately has all the functions that apply to that > > production. > > The third version seems far superior. It makes a proper, visible > separation between static semantics and dynamic semantics, which is > very helpful, and standard practice as well. > > In fact, you could be even more consistent about the triptych > syntax/static semantics/dynamic semantics by grouping all of the > latter in a subsection as well. That would be my preferred structure. > (If you worry about having too many levels of numbering you might want > to avoid numbering the individual bits of the dynamic semantics in > that case. I think their section numbers are a minor concern.) > > (BTW, in addition to a better structure, I have to agree with Claus > that having hyperlinks in the PDF would be a real blessing. I don't > know how much work that would be, though.) > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
