Some bugs of Spec.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Some bugs of Spec.

Garrett Smith
> Hi,

> Updated grammar posted at (new location):
>     http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/grammar.pdf
> Thanks again for the bug reports.
> Also, we have no plans to write an LR(1) grammar for ES4. I'm not even sure
> it is possible. Are you volunteering? :)

I would help out with documentation where I can.

I have read the JLS and most of the W3C docs. I find the current LR
grammar of ES 3 doc to be less intuitive than these.

I'd like to see working examples that clearly exhibit the language.
Ideally, examples from the tests, so that it's in-sync. I prefer
examples so I can tell what works, what doesn't, and get a clear
explanation right next to a working example that I can run.

I'm still learning about ES4, though. if you hand things off to me, I
could write stuff up but it would need review.

Garrett

> Jd

--
http://dhtmlkitchen.com/
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Some bugs of Spec.

Jeff Dyer
Hi Garrett,

Thanks for offering to help. The kind of help we can use most right now
is the kind that Eric and others have provided with the grammar:
detailed feedback on the correctness and completeness of what the
working group has produced thus far. My request for volunteers was
specific and, in part, tongue-in-cheek, believing that such as grammar
cannot be written.

We plan to produce a (dramatically revised) early draft of the spec
later this year. Your feedback on that draft will be welcomed. In the
mean time any comments you have on the grammar, proposals or reference
implementation will also be greatly appreciated.

BTW, I don't expect the ES4 spec to look much like the JLS. We want ES4
to be more specifically defined, not depending on a single commercial
implementation to resolve ambiguities in the specification. Our audience
consists of language implementers and so we favor correctness and
conciseness over the ease-of-use provided by numerous working examples
and flowing prose. The JLS is a funny beast in that it tries to be a
language definition and a reference manual in one. This kind of worked
when Java was simple, but the 3rd edition is hard to read from either
the implementers or users perspective.

Thanks again for getting involved.

Jd


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:es4-discuss-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:12 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Some bugs of Spec.
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Updated grammar posted at (new location):
> >     http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/grammar.pdf
> > Thanks again for the bug reports.
> > Also, we have no plans to write an LR(1) grammar for ES4. I'm not
even

> sure
> > it is possible. Are you volunteering? :)
>
> I would help out with documentation where I can.
>
> I have read the JLS and most of the W3C docs. I find the current LR
> grammar of ES 3 doc to be less intuitive than these.
>
> I'd like to see working examples that clearly exhibit the language.
> Ideally, examples from the tests, so that it's in-sync. I prefer
> examples so I can tell what works, what doesn't, and get a clear
> explanation right next to a working example that I can run.
>
> I'm still learning about ES4, though. if you hand things off to me, I
> could write stuff up but it would need review.
>
> Garrett
>
> > Jd
>
> --
> http://dhtmlkitchen.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss