Machine readable specifications

gaz Heyes gazheyes at
Fri Mar 22 05:37:46 PDT 2013

On 22 March 2013 12:33, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at> wrote:

> Aren't you confusing "machine readable specification" with "machine
> readable syntax specification"? Syntax is only a small part of a
> language spec, and quite frankly, the least interesting one by far.
> Also, I don't see the benefit of your format. The EcmaScript spec
> actually goes to quite some length to give a grammar that is LR(1).
> The whole point is to keep it de facto "machine readable". But unlike
> yours, it also is human readable.

That was the reason to discuss, I think it could be applied to more than
just syntax rules. You don't like it and that's fine with me I just wanted
to post my ideas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list