Sorry about last mail, I clicked “send” instead of “minimize”.
Le 8 avr. 09 à 21:59, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
On 19 Mar 2009, at 20:10, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
[…] While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we could hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
The feature set is sort of closed for 2.0, but there should be 2.1 etc. so; what exactly do you mean/propose? I realize that idealized EBNF looks nicer than a TM grammar, but in practice it is not (IMHO).
And, on quite but not that much unrelated matters, what would be the better way to match something like:
I can apply set of rule A
I can apply set of rule B
My current is […]
I am confused as to the size of your scopes.
Is each letter starting a new scope, so b is nested inside a, and c is nested inside b (nested inside a)?
Actually, ‘a’ opens a scope A, ‘b’ both closes A and opens another scope B, which is then closed by ’c’. Note that while I’m interested in scopes, I’m even more interested in grammars development.
An actual example could help: <a # opens a scope for autocompletion of attributes of tag a
# closes the attributes scope and open a scope for autocompletion
of every possible child of a
</a> # closes everything.
</a> is of course meaningless.
A third scope, which opens with <a and closes with </a> might also be useful.
Édouard GILBERT email@example.com