On 12/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adam> I don't expect everything to make the transition. Are discussions > Adam> of "atoms" and fragments of BNF really better than calling them > Adam> expressions and linking to CPython's Grammar file? > > Actually, yes. The actual Grammar file isn't designed for explanation > (mostly it's more complex, but it also has extra productions) and is > somewhat (maybe a lot) different than the BNF in the ref manual.
IMO the only people who are going to appreciate BNF used for explanation are those working on language implementations, and they'll need to understand the Grammar file anyway. The rest of us need a simpler explanation involving examples. Having a large and detailed language specification, although an admirable ideal, is a waste of time when the target audience is perhaps a few dozen people. Make it useful for everybody and it'll be worth maintaining. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
