[sc34wg3] CTM: Semicolons, dots and other assorted syntax issues

[Reidar Bratsberg]

Thanks for the good summary.

 >I think it's important to have some clear alternatives to choose
 >between. To me it looks like we've got
 >
 >   (1) Semicolons everywhere (although not after the topic identity).
 >       This is the syntax that's currently in the CTM test suite.
 >
 >   (2) Semicolons between statements only.

+1

 >However, as you point out, (2) is not fully realized yet, because it
 >requires us to rework the mergemap directive slightly to get rid of
 >the need for the semicolon there.

My preference is with option 2 above. It makes statements more
readable if whitespace is removed, and it is well known in other
languages and formats. Should be quite clear and understandable.
Also reduces noise in the other parts.

As for the mergemap directive in consequence, I can live with any of
the suggestions. (Or even whith directives terminated with dot or
semicolon).

Were it not for the no-significant-whitespace requirement, I would
prefer directives terminating in a newline. Analog to directives to
the C preprocessor (with line continuation, if necessary, with "\",
but I cannot see that this is necessary in our case). This will keep
the directives uncluttered, and it's quite understandable IMHO.

In any case, I can live with most solutions, and would not want to
delay the process.

Best,
Reidar