kaashi

kaashi copied to clipboard

Grammar specification format

5

1. Even so-scientific language like Haskell doesn't use a standard grammar specification. 2. ABNF is not designed to support UTF-8 in the first place, its tools are old and not...

sesajad

Do we need string escape?

4

I guess yes. note that we currently don't have

sesajad

Nondeterministic Composite Destructuring

2

## Background This is a proposed solution for resolving #8. Since the proposed solution requires further discussion and contemplation, I am creating a separate issue for it. ## Proposed Solution...

loreanvictor

Look at [this gist](https://gist.github.com/loreanvictor/74eb3eb15d36c2f82d18be4b9a52c951). Both quick sort and merge sort are written in relatively intuitive and convenient forms, however due to limitations of our destructuring syntax (as is), only quick...

loreanvictor

As mentioned in #5 , a key aspect of all specification is ease of correctly building an implementation in any language with ease. That means that syntax and semantics of...

loreanvictor

Unboxing key are not easy to use.

1

Our current syntax for unboxing is ``` { { x : newNameForX, newNameFor0, newNameFor1 } : { x: 'x value', 0: '0 value', 1: '1 value' } } ``` I...

sesajad

Inclusiveness or exclusiveness in grammar

1

We can specify special identifier characters (which will be our operators) both by inclusion or exclusion. The same issue is valid for string characters. Which one should we choose and...

sesajad

constant-after-parametric key

1

do we need something like this? ``` { [x].twice : x * 2 } ``` it's currently not supported

sesajad