At Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:28:23 -0700, Danny Yoo wrote:
> > Cut-and-paste worries me. Instead of copying the documentation for X to
> > Y, usually it works better to document X as "Like Y, except...". Could
> > that work in this case?
>
>
> Ok, I can change it so it just documents the delta. How do
> Cut-and-paste worries me. Instead of copying the documentation for X to
> Y, usually it works better to document X as "Like Y, except...". Could
> that work in this case?
Ok, I can change it so it just documents the delta. How does this look?
https://github.com/dyoo/racket/commit/3a3b0f90084b
At Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:44:33 -0700, Danny Yoo wrote:
> Ok, done. I've also did a copy-and-paste of the documentation for
> parser-tools/yacc, but adjusted the prose where cfg-parser deviates
> from the standard parser interface. Does it look ok?
Cut-and-paste worries me. Instead of copying the d
Ok, done. I've also did a copy-and-paste of the documentation for
parser-tools/yacc, but adjusted the prose where cfg-parser deviates
from the standard parser interface. Does it look ok?
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Yes, I agree.
At Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:45:14 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> Sounds great to me!
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
> > wrote:
> > > Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
> >
> > There's no d
Sounds great to me!
Robby
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> > Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
>
> There's no documentation yet, and no, there needs to be a bit more
> testing. cfg-parser's interface is th
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
There's no documentation yet, and no, there needs to be a bit more
testing. cfg-parser's interface is the same as that in
parser-tools/yacc, so I can borrow from the prose there. But as for
error
Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
Robby
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I would like to move cfg-parser, which currently exists in the algol60
> collection, into parser-tools proper. That way, my 'ragg' package can
> refer to it from there. Is this ok?
> ___
I would like to move cfg-parser, which currently exists in the algol60
collection, into parser-tools proper. That way, my 'ragg' package can
refer to it from there. Is this ok?
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
9 matches
Mail list logo
