Editorial: Make grammar recursion more clear #593
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
leebyron
added
the
✏️ Editorial
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When reviewing our grammar appendixes, I found some subtle inconsistencies between how we phrase things in prose and how we represent them in grammar.
This editorial change seeks to make this more clear with two subtle changes.
First, wherever a grammatical production recursion occurs, move the recursive rule to the top of the list of rules to make it more clear that recursion is possible.
Second, when describing the "list" rule, add some prose that explains this shorthand is defined by creating such a recursive production.