[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[tlaplus] Proposal to resolve some niche TLA+ language ambiguities
- From: Andrew Helwer <andrew.helwer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:CiTfOa4z9IvN8douewPXwPfXdLJyesId70hD6qlUc20xTiX+rbHLoB17726WtN9/YgBHpTgNUJPsfZuhnqQe3WB8B9mftXDd1FdAT7sSircKvQeKJ8SkzIFgPM5bGsBD4bvLbWSS5vyKgjVQfexA/DD+ytHQudvj
I ran into these when writing the tree-sitter grammar. You can see the proposal here:
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.
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.