[relax-ng-comment] Re: Attribute grammars

[David Rosenborg <david.rosenborg@pantor.com>]

James Clark wrote (on the relax-ng list):

 

> My overall feeling is that this new notation is more rigorous and less
> ad-hoc than my original notation.  However, I think the main audience for
> this Annex is implementors, who are primarily programmers not computer
> scientists.  We need to make sure the notation makes sense to a programmer
> who I would guess would be more likely to be familiar with parser generators
> (JavaCC, yacc etc) than with attribute grammars.  If we can find a good way
> to fix my comment 6, then I think we can have a notation that both makes
> sense to our main audience and has a solid formal basis. Another worry I
> have is that it is going to take significant effort to fix all the problems
> in this new notation and make sure all the bugs have been squashed.

A word from an implementor: Please stay with the current notation.

It is compact and comprehensible. I've looked at the suggested attribute

grammar notation, but it's no improvement from my perspective.

 

Cheers,

David