----- Original Message ---- From: jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > thanks for the responses. i've done a second take on the TAP grammar > in perl6 format, with the help of patrick michaud. i'm pretty sure > it's correct now, at least as per your previous grammar. have a look:
I'll update my grammar as I can and I'll send it along and I'll try to incorporate your work. It's great to see a Perl6 version. Do Perl6 grammars support semantics along with syntax? Each test number should actually be one greater than the previous test number, but a traditional EBNF can't support that. ~ there are some places i took liberties (eg. \d versus [:digit:], \N > verses [:print:] (are comments, directives, and description really > limited to printable characters?).) Hmm, never thought about that. I don't think there's anything really wrong with non-printable characters (are null bytes a problem?), but I'm not sure how to represent that. > as an aside, patrick asked why C<1..0> was valid. i explained > C<no_plan>, and he asked why it wasn't C<1..> or the more perl6ish > C<1..*>. i know TAP isn't perl-only, but i have to say, C<1..*> is > really growing on me... 'one to whatever.' it looks and sounds better > than 'one to zero.' anyone else have thoughts on that? '1..0' actually means 'skip all'. '1..' or '1..*' would be useful for indicating an infinite stream. 'no_plan' TAP has the plan at the end. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
