Re: PR #177, ambiguity only in marks

Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hello,
>
> There’s an interesting thread of discussion in PR #177, but it seems to
> have tapered off.
>
> I’m interested in the discussion, but I’d like to focus for the moment
> on whether or not the test case is correct and can be merged. The
> grammar is:
>
>   S = A, B, C | A, @B, C .
>   A = 'a' .
>   B = 'b' .
>   C = 'c' .
>
> The input is “abc”.
>
> The test asserts that two results are equally valid:
>
> ...
>
> Does anyone disagree that both of those results are acceptable[*]?
> If not, I think we should accept the PR and merge it.

I may be reacting too fast, but I believe that both of those results are
conforming and acceptable.

> [*] The spec leaves open the possibility that an implementation might
> not report this parse as ambiguous and much of the commentary on the PR
> was focused around whether or not it *is* ambiguous.

And part of it (for which I apologize) was sidetracked into a discussion
of some possibly questionable propositions that seemed to me to be
entailed by things others had said, which were not strictly relevant to
the issue.  

Michael

-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 13:58:42 UTC