[Doc-SIG] Formalizing StructuredText (yeh!)
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:49:31 -0000
Edward D. Loper wrote:
> I added a page to Zope (under CurrentIssues), and I'll try to actually
> put more content there when I can. :)
> I guess it depends on how much the implementations diverge from
> the intensions..
My aim is to make the documentation and implementation fit. This isn't
as dishonest as it sounds, because I have found that only by *doing* the
implementation does one discover all of the implications of the form of
ST one has chosen, and it's only fair to then document them...
> I've been writing a large test set, and plan to
> post a link to it, and to the results of running STminus on it,
> later today.. (still needs a little more work).
> At that point, I'm
> hoping we can get a better idea of whether STNG and STpy really
> act like STminus. (My guess is that most differences are
> unintentional ones)
As you may have gathered, there *should* be a docutils 0.0.5, or maybe
soon, but unfortunately not this week, because of PEP writing, etc. So
it may be worth waiting on that before testing docutils (but then again,
> Definitely, since STminus is implemented directly from its formal
I like that in a tool.
> Well, I'm hoping that all 3 at least have well-defined results *where
> they do define the results*. I certainly hope that STNG will only
> give "unexpected results" for a small subclass of strings.. :)
There's unexpected (oh - I didn't want it to do that) and unexpected
(ah - I see that that *does* follow from what I asked it to do -
<<<long explanation of why I'm not writing productions in EBNF for a
No, I defer to your expertise - I need to read what you wrote in more
detail, but the case is compelling, so I leave it to you.
> I tried to make all of my productions correspond to their actual
> entities.. So you shouldn't need to do (much) postprocessing on
> the output of STminus. For example, the Paragraph production
> should give an entire paragraph, not just its first line. I think
> I may add ULItem, OLItem, and DLItem productions for similar
> reasons (without changing the language defined by the productions)
OK - I see. That *is* a good reason.
> Thanks! You've done some impressive work, yourself.
Hmm - no, what I'm doing is much simpler, in basis - if I had real time
for it it wouldn't take more than a couple of weeks, and there's nothing
complicated in there.
Anyway, so long as we're both having (some sort of) fun!
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
"How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive
continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)