On 2019-11-19 11:37:04 +0000, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Even if you do that you're still requiring the user to parse syntax > according to esoteric rules. Oh, please. Those "esoteric rules" have been in wide-spread use for decades. If you look at any manual which tries to explain the syntax of a programming language, markup language or something similar in a (semi-)formal way, it probably uses something very similar. (More formal texts often use BNF (or a variant), which are more expressive, but harder to read. Personally I like syntax diagrams (sometimes called railroad diagrams, but they seem to have mostly fallen out of fashion) And of course, like almost any manual, the PostgreSQL manual explains the notation in the preface: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/notation.html (Paper books are at an advantage here that readers usually actually start at the beginning) hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality. |_|_) | | | | | hjp@xxxxxx | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
