Skip to content
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

Be library and language agnostic #5

Open
jonathanKingston opened this issue Jan 6, 2015 · 8 comments
Open

Be library and language agnostic #5

jonathanKingston opened this issue Jan 6, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

@jonathanKingston
Copy link
Member

To make the format have a wider appeal all specific mentions to libraries should be removed from the specification.

  • Code samples if any are worth keeping should be provided in several differing languages (Perhaps pick Perl, Java and JavaScript as a slice across what is most useful in differing areas)
@kinow
Copy link
Member

kinow commented Jan 6, 2015

+1

@Leont
Copy link

Leont commented Jan 13, 2015

Agreed

@jonathanKingston
Copy link
Member Author

Can we agree upon good languages that are good demonstrators within the documentation?

There are a lot to choose from and I would like not to have too many within the specification itself.

I would also like to see EBNF and/or similar as the primary for examples.

@kinow
Copy link
Member

kinow commented Jan 13, 2015

I can help with Java, though I think that's not the best language for documentation. Maybe as in the SPARQL specification, just use simple TAP examples, EBNF (+1 from me for this, or similar) and provide links to existing implementations in Python, Perl and maaaaybe Java. The most important thing is that these implementations adhere to what we want to demonstrate. What do you think?

@jonathanKingston
Copy link
Member Author

@kinow certainly that appears to be the direction of others. Perhaps code samples can be supported by the site itself.

Regex samples worth having within the document?

BNF, EBNF or ABNF? (I'm slightly erring towards ABNF at the moment as appears to be used more in RFC's)

@Leont
Copy link

Leont commented Jan 14, 2015

The earlier draft contains an ABNF, but is describes only TAP12 plus the version header. No subtests, extended information or pragmas. Doesn't seem unicode friendly either.

@kinow
Copy link
Member

kinow commented Jan 25, 2015

I'm thinking about using some spare time in March to give it another try at rewriting the tap4j parser with JavaCC. When doing that I can review any existing draft for TAP 14, or propose something

@anko
Copy link

anko commented Mar 20, 2015

I think code implementing a spec doesn't belong in a spec. Reasons:

  • It's impossible to choose languages that represent the full breadth of programming languages well. (Many paradigms exist.)
  • If this spec is still in use in 10 years, current languages/paradigms may be dead.
  • Separation of concerns: Let's let implementations worry about implementations.

I'm all for a reference implementation in a currently popular language though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants