[tlaplus] Proposal to resolve some niche TLA+ language ambiguities

[Andrew Helwer <andrew.helwer@xxxxxxxxx>]

I ran into these when writing the tree-sitter grammar. You can see the proposal here:

https://github.com/tlaplus/rfcs/issues/4

I welcome any feedback or discussion. Philosophically, this as a question of whether we want to add complexity to the language specification by defining these as special cases of general rules, or add complexity to TLA+ parsing by requiring these cases be handled according to a straightforward reading of the language spec.

Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/5abc5a48-0fde-4fba-bf2f-a8707df679den%40googlegroups.com.