lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: bootconfig: Add EBNF syntax file
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:53:03 +0100
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:

> Thanks for such a contribution.
>
>
> > Add an extended Backus–Naur form (EBNF) syntax file for
>
> Can it matter to mention the specific file format specification version
> which should be applied finally?
>
> Would you like to refer to any standard variant?

I choose ISO/IEC 14977 : 1996(E), but it seems no good.

Don’t Use ISO/IEC 14977 Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dont-use-iso-14977-ebnf.html

I agree with this article. the ISO 14977 is halfway...
Not easy for human, but not good for machine too.
(at least it should support #xN as same as W3C BNF.

I'll drop it until rewriten by other standerd.

> > bootconfig so that user can logically understand how they
>
> Wording alternative “… that users can …”?
>
>
> > can write correct boot configuration file.
>
> Related development tools provide some benefits then, don't they?
>
>
>
> …
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.ebnf
> …
> > +digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" ;
>
> Can the specification of such alternatives (or value ranges) become
> more compact (depending on a selected standard)?

W3C EBNF support it, ISO14977 doesn't.

> …
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.rst
> …
> > +Here is the boot configuration file syntax written in EBNF.
>
> I suggest to replace the abbreviation “EBNF” by the term “extended Backus–Naur form”
> in such a sentence.

I think EBNF is enough.

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-28 04:16    [W:0.077 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site