[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Problems with Notation in CLtL

>Well, there are things that are hard to express in the simple syntactic
>notation Guy chose to use: exactly three of these things are allowed if
>and only if one of those things is present, etc.  I think that there are
>several places in the book where the syntactic expressions provide some
>necessary conditions, but where further restrictions on the format are
>specified by the text.
>In order to fix all of these things, so that the syntactic expressions
>provide a necessary and sufficient formal grammar for the language, we
>would have to go to a much more complex notation, which would be
>much tougher on the average reader.  I think that the current system,
>where there are syntactic expressions that are sometimes further
>restricted by English statements, is the way to go.
>I agree that the statement forbidding multiple doc-strings should not be
>as well-hidden as it currently is.  The fact that people have missed it
>is pretty good evidence that it is not visible enough.
>-- Scott
Would it be appropriate to provide a second reference to clear up this
confusion? If sufficient notation would make CLtL impenetrable for the
average reader, could not a reference with sufficient notation be made
availble for those with the desire to wade through it?

David Linn
...!psuvax1!vuengvax.bitnet!linndr              ! uucp/USENET