Contradictory description in the doc of Shubbery Notation

[s-cerevisiae]

In the prototype documentation of the Shubbery Notation, Section 2.3 says that

Subsequent groups in a sequence must start with the same indentation as the first group.

group 1
group 2
// error, because the group is indented incorrectly:
  group 3

I took the word error as it would be illegal to indent like that.

But in the immediately following section (Section 2.4), it says

The following two groups are the same:

f(1) + 2
  + 3 + 4
  - 5 - 6

f(1) + 2 + 3 + 4 - 5 - 6

Which, in my opinion, means that this is legal, and will only make the lines a whole group.

I'm not a native speaker, so I'd like to know if it's only me or the wording is being a bit misleading.

[s-cerevisiae]

Closing this because I found it is unhelpful and probably bikeshedding, which is not needed during this early stage of the project.

[sorawee]

I don't think there's anything incorrect.

1 + 2
  + 1 + 2

// parsed as '(top (group 1 (op +) 2 (op +) 1 (op +) 2))

has only one group. The operator at the beginning of the second line indicates a continuation of the group.

In contrast, this has two different groups:

1 + 2
1 + 2

// parsed as '(top (group 1 (op +) 2) (group 1 (op +) 2))

And indeed, if we indent correctly, it errors:

1 + 2
  1 + 2

// wrong indentation (or missing `:` on previous line)

[s-cerevisiae]

And indeed, if we indent correctly, it errors:

1 + 2
  1 + 2

// wrong indentation (or missing `:` on previous line)

Oh I see. My mind must have been absent when filing the issue....