> | How accessible is the current TREX formal spec? Is it too hard? Do we need
> | something providing the same information as the formal spec but in an easier
> | to understand, less formal way (perhaps with the formalism in an appendix)?
>
> The current formal spec for TREX is tough going. OTOH, I like its
> formality and I think that's an important aspect of this work.
I think the current formal spec of TREX is very legible, especially
compared to that of the other.
But I would suggest the use of the following syntax,
> function boolean allowsChildren(pattern p) {
> switch (p) {
> case <oneOrMore> p1 </oneOrMore>:
> return allowsChildren(p1);
> case <interleave> p1 p2 </interleave>:
> case <group> p1 p2 </group>:
> case <choice> p1 p2 </choice>:
rather than the current M [[p]](a, c, e) syntax.
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems
