On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
> 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.
#3 was also my favorite from the first batch
>
> 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.)
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives-2.pdf
has a 5th alternative version that follows your suggested structure. Note that
I classified semantic functions that only depend upon the static structure of
the program under "static semantics"
Unless somebody comes up with some better ideas I think this is the one I will
go with.
>
> (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.)
>
I agree that internal hyperlinks would be useful, but I don't intend to spend
any time on them until this editions is much closer to completion. They're too
hard to maintain in a rapidly changing document.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
