Re: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup

From
Dave Makower <>
Date
2000-04-06T12:15:07+00:00
ID
p04310109b51226c47bb6@[192.168.10.23]
Thread
Re: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup
>| - I kept the name nt because otherwise it really clogs up the code
>
>Hmm. Mumble. Maybe.

Probably not worth a whole lot more debate on such a small issue, but 
while I can see <rhs> and <lhs> as well-known abbreviations, <nt> has 
the disadvantages that: (a) it will be one of the less 
self-explanatory elements in the docbook vocabulary, and (b) it 
usually stands for something else.  So I'll make one last mention of 
my preference for <nonterminal>.  I know <nt> is much more concise, 
and the point about <nonterminal> clogging up the code is well-taken, 
but if the judgment call were in my hands, I would still prefer the 
self-describing <nonterminal> to the concise <nt>.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dave Makower                                 <> |
| Manager of Portal Architecture & Development                      |
+--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|   iClick, Inc.                 |   (914) 872-8030                 |
|   120 Bloomingdale Road        |   (914) 872-8100   fax           |
|   3rd Floor                    |   (914) 872-8000   main          |
|   White Plains, NY  10605      |   http://www.iclick.com/         |
+--------------------------------+----------------------------------+