From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22154 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 16:25:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 22140 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2009 16:25:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:25:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 17592 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2009 16:25:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Sep 2009 16:25:43 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: [PATCH:doc] GDB/MI attribute names Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-24-generic; KDE/4.2.90; i686; svn-979530; 2009-06-10) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <19131.17428.428101.481874@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19133.17613.991722.489023@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19133.20072.645141.88398@totara.tehura.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <19133.20072.645141.88398@totara.tehura.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200909282025.42149.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00864.txt.bz2 On Saturday 26 September 2009 Nick Roberts wrote: > > ...I can guess what it > > means but why are there three pairs of double quotes? > > I see why now. Perhaps something like: > > ::== | | "_" > ::== """ ( )+ """ I would say it's better to inline 'fieldchar' inside 'variable' here, since we're not using it elsewhere. E.g.: variable ==> """ letter ( letter | digit | "_" ) * """ > I would prefer to use BNF as it seems quite widespread and I've not seen > > `COMMAND ==>' > `CLI-COMMAND | MI-COMMAND' > > as a syntax anywhere else. I'd suggest we first fix the direct problem that hand -- which is documenting that field names may not use random characters. And for that, can we use the syntax that is already used? We can discuss global change of grammar notation. I don't have a well-formed opinion about the specific characters used to express the grammar -- I found the current one fairly clear, and the difference between :== and ==> seems insignificant. - Volodya