- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:36:09 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1376
------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-09 03:36 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> A.1.1 grammar-note: parens
>
> "A look-ahead of one character is required to distinguish function patterns"
> Change "function patterns" to "a FunctionCall".
Done.
>
> "from a QName or keyword followed by a Pragma, or Comment"
> Delete comma.
Done.
>
> "for (: whom the bell :) $tolls = 3 return $tolls"
> This example is illegal. Change "=" to "in" ?
Done.
>
> (this note)
> What's so special about this particular case that it deserves to be pointed
> out? There are lots of other cases that require lookahead (in a lookahead-
> based parser), and more lookahead than just one character. I think this
> grammar-note should be dropped.
Since, with nested comments, you can no longer match "foo(" with a regular
expression, this case is not different. The original issue is "foo(:" vs.
"foo(". But, I don't think this non-normative note is harmful, and I'll leave
it in unless someone wants to push on the matter.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 03:36:13 UTC