Markdown Extra Spec: Parsing Section

[Jacob Rus]

Michel Fortin wrote:

> Le 2008-05-12 à 18:14, John MacFarlane a écrit :

> 

>> The PEG representation is concise, precise, and readable.

> 

> Readable, hum... if I look at this rule from PEG Markdown:

> 

>     ListContinuationBlock = a:StartList

>         ( BlankLines

>         { if (strlen($$.contents.str) == 0)

>             $$.contents.str = strdup("\001"); /* block separator */

>             pushelt($$, &a); } )

>         ( Indent ListBlock { pushelt($$, &a); } )+

>         { $$ = mk_str(concat_string_list(reverse(a.children))); }

> 

> it looks a lot like code to me, half of it I don't understand. If we're 

> going this way, there's going to be a learning curve: for me, and for 

> everyone trying to understand the syntax. I'd prefer to avoid forcing 

> people to learn a new language only to understand the specification.


Yeah, that's worse.

Mainly I just would suggest taking all those numbered lists of things, 
and putting them on a single line.  It's not that it has to be BNF or 
EBNF/ABNF/whatever, but parts which *can* be expressed in such a way, 
and can be condensed to fit in a more compact space, should be.  The 
current numbered lists + English approach, in many parts of your current 
work, just add visual clutter. :)

-Jacob