| 1 |
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:53:51 +0800 |
| 2 |
konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use |
| 5 |
> u: or v: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The entire point of defining it as a prefix-space was to avoid ambiguity, |
| 8 |
and leave plenty of room for other such selector prefixes. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Relying on properties like "is it a number" or "is it text" is a shoddy |
| 11 |
heuristic. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
A heuristic that will fail us as soon as we want to add new features in |
| 14 |
our matcher syntax. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Hence, |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
<ATOM>[<CONSTRAINT>(,<CONSTRAINT>...)] |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
CONSTRAINT: <identifier>:<parameter>(,<parameter>...) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Then instead of debates about how we can invent some "new" syntax |
| 24 |
where we have to constantly reinvent existing syntax to allow space |
| 25 |
for the new syntax, we can just define new identifiers, because we thought |
| 26 |
ahead about this problem and gave us wiggle room to add features. |
Archives