On 05/11/11 17:30, David Southwell wrote:
> The problem you identify in subsequent lines, has its roots in postfix's
> rather primitive formatting structure.
>
> If it were replace by something like:
> {submission (variant,modifier [connector] data )
> (variant = data)
> (variant = data)
> end submission
> }
> This type of formatting structure (it would need a few more symbols to cover
> all the current alternatives) is easier for humans to read, makes clear the
> separation between modules and facilitates the building of diagnostic &
> executive parsers to test, implement and log outcomes.
Whatever syntax you are going to come up can not be immune to syntax
errors, predicting the effect of those errors is limited to the
computation of all the permutations of the symbols it is composed with.
The fact that a syntax is better than another is matter of taste. I find
the current syntax really obvious and easy to parse. If leading space
used as line continuation marker disturbs you, just do not use it. It is
however very easy to write a simple program (or an emacs mode) that
understands the current syntax and highlights line continuations, making
leading spaces more obvious to see.
> Idiosyncratic formatting is a curse inflicted on system administrators who
> are
> expected by those who are dedicated to supporting a single application. The
> demands they make on administrators are therefore unrealistic.
Until everyone will agree on a common formatting for representing
whatever information, we will have to come with different syntax for
different purposes and usage domains. XML tried to be such format, and
failed miserably IMHO.
Cheers,
--
Daniele
