Editorial: Fix grammatical term misuse #804
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
When a phrase such as
a |Foo| production
or
a |Foo| grammar production
or
a |Foo| syntactic production
is talking about an *instance* of the production,
change it to just
a |Foo|
Replace 4 occurrences of
the syntactic production that is being evaluated
with a reference to the appropriate nonterminal.
(Because one doesn't evaluate productions.)
Change occurrences of "this production" to "this |Foo|" where appropriate.
In
When processing the production <emu-grammar>...
and
Let _formalParameterList_ be the production <emu-grammar>...
change
the production
to
an instance of the production
Change occurrences of
|ClassElement| is the production <emu-grammar>...
to
|ClassElement| is <emu-grammar>...
(It should more properly be "is an instance of", but
there are lots of pre-existing examples of the "is" formulation.)
Change a couple occurrences of "production" to "phrase".
Replace occurrences of:
parsed grammar phrase
parsed grammar production
parse result
with
Parse Node
For phrases such as:
a production
a grammar production
a syntactic grammar production
when they actually refer to an *instance* of the production,
change them to:
a Parse Node
this production expansion's |Term| -> this |Term| this production's |Term| -> this |Term| this production's |Atom| -> |Atom| the expansion of this production's |Atom| -> |Atom| to the left of this production expansion's initial left parenthesis -> to the left of this |Atom| this production's |Atom| -> this |Atom|
number of times the <emu-grammar> production is expanded -> number of <emu-grammar> Parse Nodes number of <emu-grammar> productions -> number of <emu-grammar> Parse Nodes
the total number of <emu-grammar> Parse Nodes prior to this |Thing| plus the total number of <emu-grammar> Parse Nodes enclosing this |Thing| -> the total number of <emu-grammar> Parse Nodes prior to or enclosing this |Thing|
Rename some parameters whose names don't convey the values that get passed to them: EvaluateNew: _constructProduction_ -> _constructExpr_ IsAnonymousFunctionDefinition: _production_ -> _expr_ IsInTailPosition: _nonterminal_ -> _call_ HasProductionInTailPosition: _nonterminal_ -> _call_
(The former wording read like a traversal of the grammar, not a traversal of a parse tree.)
|
This is awesome. We should probably define a term Parse Node in 5.1.4 or similar and call out that it is an instance of whatever production it parsed and that it has Children. |
Done. (I'm not entirely happy with the wording, but don't see an easy way to improve it.) |
jmdyck
force-pushed
the
gram_term_misuse
branch
from
176c2e1 to
550bb32
Compare
|
FWIW, I find this wording impeccable! |
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.
Fix many incorrect or questionable uses of grammatical terms, mostly "production" being used in the sense of "instance of a production".
See https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2985, submitted in 2014 against ES6 by @rossberg-chromium.
(There are still a few problematic cases, but this PR is good enough for now.)