- From: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:19:18 -0800
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Michael Kay wrote:
>
> I can't see why the note is there at all. Distinguishing "(" from "(:"
> is no different from distinguishing "<" from "<<" or child:x from
> child::x.
It isn't exactly a matter of distinguishing "(" from "(:". The note is
there (I imagine) because, given the input
address (: this may be empty :)
A.2's "longest possible match" rule forces the A.2.2 machine to prefer
the pattern
<QName "(">
(which will lead to a lexer error) over the pattern
QName
(which wouldn't). Since presumably this input should be considered
valid, some way had to be found to get the machine to prefer the shorter
pattern. I guess this extra lookahead is supposed to achieve that,
though exactly how it fits into the operation of the machine is unclear.
(An alternative would have been to add a pattern
<QName "(:">
with a transition of "EXPR_COMMENT; pushState(OPERATOR)", but:
(a) I think you'd have to add about 17 more transitions to handle
similar cases, and
(b) it would wreak havoc with the EBNF.)
-Michael Dyck
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 14:21:57 UTC