Skip to content

Topic/syntax spec docs #1849

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Dec 26, 2016
Merged

Topic/syntax spec docs #1849

merged 17 commits into from
Dec 26, 2016

Conversation

b-studios
Copy link
Contributor

This PR ports the syntax spec from this tex document to Markdown and fixes a couple of typos and minor bugs.

@smarter What do you think?

@b-studios
Copy link
Contributor Author

b-studios commented Dec 21, 2016

I purposefully reengineered the history to make it possible to review the changes. Of course I will squash the commits later to eventually merge.

@b-studios
Copy link
Contributor Author

b-studios commented Dec 21, 2016

The two changes that might require reviewing are bac774d and cdc4442. All others are more or less boring.

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Dec 21, 2016

Awesome! You should also add a link to it from https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/blob/master/docs/docs/index.md, also the tex version should be deleted to avoid duplication.

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Dec 21, 2016

The two changes that might require reviewing are bac774d and cdc4442.

@odersky, could you have a look please?

@b-studios
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, one thing I was not sure about: I deleted the tree annotations that can be found in the tex version, like

-|  Refinement                                             RefinedTypeTree(EmptyTree, refinement)
+|  Refinement

Not sure, whether you want to keep them.

@odersky
Copy link
Contributor

odersky commented Dec 22, 2016

Looks great. Definitely better to have this in markdown.

I would leave the tree annotations in this version of the document, though. The reason is that they give us a good overview what parsed constructs map into. When we export the document to a language spec, they would be removed, of course.

@odersky
Copy link
Contributor

odersky commented Dec 26, 2016

LGTM, Thanks!

@odersky odersky merged commit d7f3722 into scala:master Dec 26, 2016
@odersky odersky removed the reviewed label Dec 26, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants