- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:22:24 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1382
------- Additional Comments From cmsmcq@w3.org 2005-07-07 03:22 -------
Here is a proposed rewording to make clearer that the
priority rule applies in all cases, not just cases of
ambiguity.
As written, the grammar in A.1 is ambiguous for some forms
using the '+' and '*' Kleene operators. The ambiguity is
resolved as follows: these operators are tightly bound
to the SequenceType expression, and have higher precedence
than other uses of these symbols. Any occurrence of '+'
and '*', as well as '?', following a sequence type is
assumed to be an occurrence indicator. That is, a
"+", "*", or "?" immediately following an ItemType MUST
be an OccurrenceIndicator. Thus, "4 treat as
item() + - 5" MUST be interpreted as (4 treat as item()+) - 5,
taking the '+' as an OccurrenceIndicator and the
'-' as a subtraction operator. To force the interpretation
of "+" as an addition operator (and the corresponding
interpretation of the "-" as a unary minus), parentheses
may be used: the form "(4 treat as item()) + -5" surrounds
the SequenceType expression with parentheses and leads
to the desired interpretation.
This rule has as a consequence that certain forms which
would otherwise be legal and unambiguous are not
recognized: in "4 treat as item() + 5", the "+" is
taken as an OccurrenceIndicator, and not as an operator,
which means this is not a legal expression.
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 03:22:26 UTC