Hi,
(the mailing lists obiously have some problems right now (at least
commits and dev). Let's see when this mail arrives.)
can you take a look at the current trunk and resolve the issues in case
everything works as expected?
Best,
Peter
Am 28.04.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Peter Klügl:
Hi,
short answer: It makes sense :-)
There are maybe some problems in the grammars concerning types and
variables vs external actions, but I think it's worth the trouble.
Can you create a jira issue for it? I will take care of it then.
Best,
Peter
PS: You can of course also submit a patch for it, if you want :-)
Am 28.04.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Renaud Richardet:
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
