On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > I see. I've attached the new version of the document with a > couple of command syntaxes at the end. If we spend time on this > now, it would be good if we write down the syntax in EBNF right > away and try to identify types of information that is common to > multiple commands. The does not have to be done in all details > yet, for example, a CONDIFION_FLAG rule for the conditional flags > would be enough for now; it can be broken down into the individual > flags later.
Right. I've spent all day today going through each command listed and adding the *bare minimum* EBNF notation to them. While I don't have a lot to show for it, I've more or less done every single command we have, hand-waiving over the more interesting details. For example, I've not listed every single style option available. If we need things in more detail, we can always flesh those out at a later date. But to give an overview, this will do. Note that the EBNF isn't strictly correct for all grammar types---that is, I can't use this to build a parser or to generate rail-road diagrams. If we really do want that, I can improve the syntax to be more compliant. Please take a look---we're not quite there yet, but hopefully I've given this a heaftier shove in the right direction. If anyone is curious, yes, this is very tedious indeed. :) https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ThomasAdam/mvwm/document-parsing/rewrite-notes/parsing -- Thomas Adam -- "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
