- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:09:27 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1381 ------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-09 05:09 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > I think the point about the parser is well taken. Here is > a candidate rewording: > > Unprefixed function names spelled the same way as language > keywords could make the language harder to recognize. For > instance, "if(foo)" could be taken either as a FunctionCall or > as the beginning of an IfExpr. Therefore it is not legal > syntax for a user to invoke functions with unprefixed names > which match any of the names in A.3 Reserved Function Names. > > A function named "if" can be called by binding its namespace > to a prefix and using the prefixed form: "library:if(foo)" > instead of "if(foo)". Adapted. > [Optionally show parse trees from proposal in bug 1390.] > No, I don't want to start showing parse trees in the spec.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 05:09:32 UTC