> That does not mean they're opposite goals. Having parsing ambiguities means insufficient thought has been given to parsing, or the language has been defined as "as implemented" with an ad-hoc and organically grown…
I'm interested in how this compares to other languages with reference implementations. Is ruby the odd one out here, not providing a formal grammar, or is that the norm? Ruby has a stated design goal of making…
> That does not mean they're opposite goals. Having parsing ambiguities means insufficient thought has been given to parsing, or the language has been defined as "as implemented" with an ad-hoc and organically grown…
I'm interested in how this compares to other languages with reference implementations. Is ruby the odd one out here, not providing a formal grammar, or is that the norm? Ruby has a stated design goal of making…