<div dir="ltr">Hi Francis, thanks for keeping the conversation alive.<div><br></div><div>We're in agreement about the triple-quoted docstrings, and that a docstring in a type addendum should be concatenated to any docstrings from previous type definitions/addenda.</div><div><br></div><div>The remaining issue is placement, and what you advocate (basically Option 3 on the wiki) brings up a disconnect between the conventional way of describing types (supertypes before features) and what's formally allowed by (our current implementations of) TDL (rearrangeable terms). Also, type addenda do not require supertypes at all. I'll try to avoid getting into this quagmire again lest it stall the conversation, and instead offer two simpler choices (ignoring other alternatives), either of which would allow you to do what you want:</div><div><br></div><div>(1) we change our TDL-parsers to ensure that top-level supertypes, if any, appear before other terms</div><div><br></div><div>(2) we allow a docstring to appear before any top-level term (Option 2 on the wiki) or before the final . character, but only one per (type/addendum/instance) definition</div><div><br></div><div>Above, (1) is the heavier solution that may break backward compatibility with some grammars, while (2) would allow you to put docstrings where you don't necessarily want them (but you can always follow your own convention). I'm happy to support either.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 8:59 PM Francis Bond <<a href="mailto:bond@ieee.org">bond@ieee.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">G'day,<br> <br> I am starting a new thread as the other one was getting quite long:<br> thanks Michael for starting the original discussion.<br> <br> We need doc-strings working to move forward with the new linguistic<br> type documentation. It is a great pity that Stephan,Woodley, Michael<br> Glenn and Ann were not there on that day, but we reached a broad<br> consensus at Paris that triple double quotes ' """ ' was a good<br> delimiter, with them basically allowed after the types. We have (if I<br> understand correctly) code for PET from Rebecca, and code for the LKB<br> (from Dan, although it may need to be extended to the instances).<br> <br> Woodley currently has a working implementation with just ' " ' (but<br> only after := , not for example, :+) which allows for escaped quotes '<br> \" ' which currently the LKB does not allow.<br> <br> Could we move forward with the """ option, nicely documented by Michael here:<br> <br> <a href="http://moin.delph-in.net/TdlRfc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://moin.delph-in.net/TdlRfc</a><br> <br> DocString := /"""([^"\\]|\\.|"[^"]|""[^"])*"""/ Spacing<br> <br> I would go for one doc-string per type and doc strings in addendums<br> concatenating with the origins.<br> <br> Could we try to reach consensus as soon as possible? I do not want<br> it to drift away again, as it has so many times in the past, ...<br> <br> <br> -- <br> Francis Bond <<a href="http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/</a>><br> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies<br> Nanyang Technological University<br> </blockquote></div>