"Jewett, Jim J" <jim.jewett at eds.com>: > That works for me now that I already know what it should say. > I'm not sure it would have worked on my first reading. The question is whether it would work any better than an equivalently complete and accurate BNF definition. My main point is that railroad diagrams are more powerful than BNF productions, because they're not constrained to fitting everything into a hierarchy -- effectively they can contain 'gotos'. Also I think there's something appealingly intuitive about them -- there's very little meta-notation that has to be explained, and kept separated somehow from the non-meta-notation that's being described. > I do not see any good way to verify a picture. If the picture was > generated based on some textual format -- maybe. The diagram could be generated from a textual formalism, which I suppose could be verified against something else. But is that really a big issue? The Language Reference contains heaps and heaps of English prose that nobody complains can't be automatically verified. Putting some of that into diagrams instead of words can't make things any worse. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4