Re: [css-syntax] <an+b> grammar

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
>> Hi TJ,
>>
>> I like your new approach for defining an+b, but I think that the grammar is missing a few clauses for when A is implicitly 1:
>>
>> n+3
>> +n+3
>> -n+3
>
> Should be fixed now.  I had to add 8 more clauses to the production,
> but they group naturally with the existing ones, so it should still be
> easy enough to understand.

I'll note, though, that this is now technically *slightly* more
permissive than the original grammar: if you use any of the "+n"
forms, whitespace is now allowed between the "+" and the "n", while it
was illegal originally.  I couldn't wipe that out without abandoning
property grammar entirely, since property grammar is entirely agnostic
to whitespace between tokens.

It was also always unclear whether comments were allowed inside of
an+b.  It's now clear by default, since I'm using a property grammar.

I don't believe either of these are problematic.

~TJ