"David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fbad4e140909241512h5c56dd09xe6d3d7de0603f...@mail.gmail.com... > 2009/9/24 Platonides <platoni...@gmail.com>: >> Brian wrote: > >>> * wikitext parsing would be much faster if the language was well defined >>> and >>> we could use flex/bison/etc... > >> Have you read the archives? >> It has been tried. Several times. >> There's even a mailing list for that. >> Getting a formal definition of ~90% of the wikitext syntax is easy. The >> other 10% drived nuts everyone trying to do it hard enough, so far. >> Keep trying, but build over what's already done.
The 10% drove people off cliffs because it is, pretty much by definition, the horrible unexpected behaviour that is a *consequence* of not having a formal definition. Writing a formal definition is not impossible if you require that it be sensible at the final reading. The parser is, in many places, *not* sensible, and naturally those quirks are difficult to describe, but they're also undesirable overall. A true move to a formal language definition involves action from both ends: writing a formal definition that follows the current parser in general, *and* being prepared to alter the parser to remove some of the more egregious deviations from expected behaviour. --HM _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
