Adam Olsen wrote: > 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.
A language reference manual and a language specification are two different things, and the existence of bnf/grammar info in a language reference manual need to turn it into some inpenaterable ISO-spec like document. I know that I sometimes want to know if some unusual syntax is legal or not, particularly when learning a language. The bnf/grammar stuff is relatively small and if sections are organised consistently, easily skipped over by readers with no interest it it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
