Remove Grammar doc comments
#1420
Conversation
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
As incorrect as some of them are, I did find them quite useful. These comments helped me trace down what I needed (to use/change) for #1414. I'm not really opposed to this PR, but I do kind of worry that once they're deleted, the correct ones won't be added back. Also as far as I understand, it's sometimes necessary for the parser's logic to deviate from the grammar, in order to produce good diagnostics. I wonder if there is a good way to document both the correct grammar and the looser grammar the parser uses, and the relation between their production rules? |
|
Thinking more about this, the path forward here should be to generate a grammar for the Swift language from the syntax nodes because they will automatically be kept up-to-date if the layout of the syntax tree changes. |
|
@WowbaggersLiquidLunch I’m generating the grammar in #1771. Do you think that would be a sufficient replacement of the current comments? |
I think #1771 is a good approach in general. I left some comments in the PR there. One of the comments I want to highlight is that the new Grammar section uses a lot of the parser's type/protocol names instead of the actual grammar components' names. I don't know if it's possible to generate it, but it's be really helpful to have a translation table between the types/protocols and the syntactic categories. |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/no-grammar
branch
2 times, most recently
from
150a228 to
4cc6fae
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
These grammars were most of the time incomplete, incorrect and in the case of recovery wrong by definition. Instead of having misleading doc comments, let’s delete them entirely.
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/no-grammar
branch
from
4cc6fae to
9945b3e
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
These grammars were most of the time incomplete, incorrect and in the case of recovery wrong by definition. Instead of having misleading doc comments, let’s delete them entirely.