> > > I am concern about evaluating only the rhs. The following > > production shows that we can do something to the rhs of "/" > > prior to evaluating the expression. > > > > [67] PathExpr ::= ("/" RelativePathExpr?) > > | ("//" RelativePathExpr) > > | RelativePathExpr /* gn: leading-lone-slash */ > > [68] RelativePathExpr ::= StepExpr (("/" | "//") StepExpr)* > > Why do you think these productions show that? It's the normalization > and evaluation rules, not the grammar productions, that dictate > whether we can "do something" to a StepExpr prior to evaluating the > expression. > This is where I think our interpretation differs. I take it that you are inferring from the normalization and evaluation rules as layout in formal semantics. Now, I see those rules being manifested depending on how the semantics of the expression is to be fullfilled. If there is agreement on how $a/$b should be processed, then those evaluation rules has to fine tuned accordingly. If there is a will there is a way. I suspect $a/$b is going to be a very common construct the result however is going to catch a lot of people by surprise. Its just going to take some explaining and whether it will be convincing is entirely another matter.Received on Saturday, 30 April 2005 02:43:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:44 UTC