On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:39:36PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't think that's all that big an impact, myself. I think it's mostly because the grammar is not formally defined, and therefore, parsing pinch points crept in.
I'm not exactly clear on what a "parsing pinch point" is, but is it
A pinch point in general is that corner in the spec where the implementation complexity gets all out of whack with the apparent scope of the problem.
expected that when the syntax gets formally specified, various weird aspects of the grammar will suddenly spring to life (like a couple that I've mentioned recently) and be fixed, breaking a few (or many?) wikis? Is it anticipated that the grammar will be "fixed"?
Any attempt to formalize the grammer is *going* to display at least a couple unresolvable conflicts, IMHO. When that happens, solutions will have to be proposed, (hopefully) examined and tested, and then implemented -- preferable all in one lump, since they'll require a flag-day pass through article text to synchronize with.
Cheers, -- jra