[re.grammar] Improve grammar typesetting. #3193
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jensmaurer
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2019
Member
jensmaurer
left a comment
jensmaurer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a fan of having different representations of grammar in the C++ standard to start with, but consistency with the upstream ECMA stuff is probably more important here than local consistency within the C++ wording draft.
So, this is a net improvement.
Member
|
Yes, as this is effectively a patch applied on top of another standard, following that standard's conventions here seems best. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, the regular expression grammar rules in [re.grammar] are formatted with crude codeblocks:
In the ECMA standard itself, rules are typeset like this:
So as an experiment, I tried mimicking that typesetting. Result:
Personally, I think it looks nicer than the crude codeblocks, and matching the upstream ECMAScript re grammar typesetting more closely is a nice bonus. What do you think? :)
(Incidentally, this also benefits cxxdraft-htmlgen, because it reduces the amount of non-C++ code in codeblocks.)