Markdown Extra Spec: Parsing Section

Jacob Rus jacobolus at
Tue May 13 01:14:49 EDT 2008

Michel Fortin wrote:

> Le 2008-05-12 à 18:14, John MacFarlane a écrit :


>> The PEG representation is concise, precise, and readable.


> Readable, hum... if I look at this rule from PEG Markdown:


> ListContinuationBlock = a:StartList

> ( BlankLines

> { if (strlen($$.contents.str) == 0)

> $$.contents.str = strdup("\001"); /* block separator */

> pushelt($$, &a); } )

> ( Indent ListBlock { pushelt($$, &a); } )+

> { $$ = mk_str(concat_string_list(reverse(a.children))); }


> it looks a lot like code to me, half of it I don't understand. If we're

> going this way, there's going to be a learning curve: for me, and for

> everyone trying to understand the syntax. I'd prefer to avoid forcing

> people to learn a new language only to understand the specification.

Yeah, that's worse.

Mainly I just would suggest taking all those numbered lists of things,
and putting them on a single line. It's not that it has to be BNF or
EBNF/ABNF/whatever, but parts which *can* be expressed in such a way,
and can be condensed to fit in a more compact space, should be. The
current numbered lists + English approach, in many parts of your current
work, just add visual clutter. :)


More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list