Well it's good to see that there are some adults on THIS group too.

> > IMO the clearest syntax representation ever, was the
> > syntax-diagram format of PASCAL which was used in
> > the 70s.
   
Clifford Heath wrote:
> You can get railroad diagrams from ANTLRworks for any ANTLR
> grammar. However they (and syntax-directed editors in general)
> are much less effective for languages that require significant
> look-ahead.If you manage to make an ANTLR grammar for Ruby,
> I'll be a little amazed (though it's definitely possible)
> and you'll be a hero in here. But it's a massive task.
> The LALR-based grammar for Ruby has many context-sensitive 
> areas which rely on large look-ahead.
> 
OK, IIRC Pascal had 1 char for the tokeniser look-ahead,
and 1 token look-ahead for the parser.

> > Can anybody point me to an on-line minimal formal
> > syntax for ruby, so as to not rely on the chatty tutors.
> > We want a train-time-table format; not a novel.
> No such syntax description exists. Even if it did, a syntax
> directed editor probably wouldn't work very well for Ruby.
> 
Thanks. I'll avoid this potential tar-trap.
The superficial simplicity is deceptive.

I love jazz: how it offers the oportunity for the artist to display
acrobatic complexity. But not for a language/tool that *I* 
have to use to solve my problems.  That's probably why 
Ruby is so popular with the kiddies.

You didn't comment on the virtues or otherwise of 
'alternative syntax': either include brackets for args, or not, 
as you like. I suppose it's so Baroque/jazzy already, that the 
extra complication doesn't add much more opportunity for 
confusion/errors.

Thanks,

== Chris Glur.