David A. Wheeler scripsit: > 2. In an earlier email discussion we discussed how to interpret > "(head|empty) DOLLAR comment_eol"; the current BNF production reflects > that. However, I'm now leaning toward making that be an error.
I agree again. I think it's very important not to fall into the trap of "Well, this syntax has no current meaning, but I see how it could possibly mean X, so let's make it mean X." In such situations, I think it is far better for the syntax in question to be an error. If every possible syntax is meaningful, then there is no hope of intuitive error detection, still less error correction, an important property of a truly readable syntax. For the same reason, I am opposed to the "<* ... *>" syntax. We already have a way of doing this, even if it's imperfect, and we should stick with that rather than adding yet another complication. That syntax should either be an error, or these forms should be ordinary identifiers. -- One art / There is John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> No less / No more http://www.ccil.org/~cowan All things / To do With sparks / Galore --Douglas Hofstadter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow - 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812 _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
