Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > I agree with you. It's been pretty clear since BNF was first used > (strictly speaking, it was just BF for Algol 58, but that was well > before my time) that some terminations in BNF *require* explanation in > human language. That doesn't make the formalism useless.
Or to put it another way: almost no one likes reading code without comments. Especially those less well versed in the technical specification language, and I'd suggest we would generally like to enable understanding in the readers even when the ABNF may be technically correct and complete. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
