Hello,
I have been using Ruta a lot lately, and it has made me much more
productive. Thanks to all the people that contributed to it!
I have been thinking about two small syntax simplifications and was
wondering if they would make sense:
A) Types declarations (2.5.1)
// Types with features may add a parent type in their declarations.
// *If no parent type is specified, Annotation is used as the implied
default parent type. *
// before
DECLARE Annotation MyAnnotation(STRING myFeature);
// after
DECLARE MyAnnotation(STRING myFeature);
B) Matching condition
// The matching condition of the rule element refers to the complete
document,
// or more specific to the annotation of the type “DocumentAnnotation”,
which covers the whole document.
// *If no matching rule is specified, the whole document
(DocumentAnnotation) is implicitely used. *
// before
Document{-> MARKFAST(Animal, 'Animals.txt')};
// after
MARKFAST(Animal, 'Animals.txt');
What do you think? Do they make sense? Would that introduce some
inconsistencies / ambiguity in the Ruta language? Would the implementation
be hard?
All the best, Renaud
