Re: completed A-620-4 (make Expr optional in a couple spots)

In a few of these cases, an empty sequence would not be a valid value, so it doesn’t make much sense for the grammar to allow it: e.g. 

element {$name}

But I agree, if we allow the expression to be omitted in a function body, then we should allow it in validate, ordered/unordered, try/catch.

Michael Kay
Saxonica


> On 26 Oct 2015, at 09:56, Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 22/10/2015 05:51, Michael Dyck wrote:
>>> A-620-4 Michael Dyck to resolve Bug 29185 by accepting the proposal.
>> i.e.:
>>> StringConstructorInterpolation ::= "`{" Expr? "}`"
>>> EnclosedExpr ::= "{" Expr? "}"
> 
> There are quite a few other expressions which use the syntax
> 
> "{" Expr "}"
> 
> e.g. various node constructors, ordered/unordered, try/catch, validate.
> 
> Is there a compelling reason why a similar change should not be made in these other places for syntactic consistency?
> 
> Cheers,
>    Tim
>

Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 10:42:50 UTC