-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 215
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistencies and Holes in with Grammar documentation #1626
Comments
Thank you for reporting the issue. Yeah, the proc syntax is duplicated and the second one is the correct. Will fix if. 🙏 About record-name and members, the syntax in the doc is not complete. We may add the definition of them... The meaning of |
Thank you @soutaro for the quick response! Would it be possible for you to provide a draft of the definition of record-name and members sometime soon (meaning before an official pull request is made)? I am currently building a tree-sitter parser for RBS and hope to use this information to finish building the |
@Forthoney |
Wow thanks for letting me know! I was not aware of its existence. I may contact the owner to notify them of this issue and perhaps collaborate with them to use the canonical definition of record-name and members once it is provided by the RBS team. |
I found three issues with the syntax documentation
proc is inconsistent
In the "Types" section, proc's grammar is laid out as
But in the "Method Types" section, proc's grammar is laid out as
I believe the bottom one is correct, so we should change the first one to be accurate
record-name, members are undefined
As the header states, record-name and members are used several times but not defined in the document.
inconsistency in representing repetition
The document sometimes uses "etc." in the beginning and "..." towards the end to represent repeating 1 or more times. This is confusing from the reader. Also, there may be a typo that stems from this inconsistent use. For example, method-name's definition uses no quotes ... when I believe the intention is to say "..."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: