4 ms·

I am not disagreeing with you, I just think that the "grammar" still works even with terrible naming. It is harder to read, it is harder to maintain, but it is

• tom_mellior 6y ago
  When I wrote "real grammars" above I meant the grammars that people write to specify "real" widely used production-quality programming languages. I linked to the C standard elsethread: https://web.archive.org/web/20161223125339/http://flash-gordon.me.uk/ansi.c.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20161223125339/http://flash-gord... Here is the Java specification: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.17 https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-15.htm... Here is the Python language reference (with terser names, but definitely "m" for multiplicative and "a" for additive expressions): https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#binary-arithmetic-operations https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#binary-... These are "real" grammars. As opposed to a "toy" grammar that someone throws on GitHub to demonstrate an "X in 100 lines" thing.
  • nxpnsv 6y ago
    Thanks, i am enjoying reading this!