1376 2005-05-11 07:30:29 +0000 [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 grammar-note: parens 2007-02-25 23:51:44 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 1.0 Last Call drafts All All CLOSED FIXED grammar P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck scott_boag public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 3401 0 jmdyck 2005-05-11 07:30:29 +0000 A.1.1 grammar-note: parens "A look-ahead of one character is required to distinguish function patterns" Change "function patterns" to "a FunctionCall". "from a QName or keyword followed by a Pragma, or Comment" Delete comma. "for (: whom the bell :) $tolls = 3 return $tolls" This example is illegal. Change "=" to "in" ? (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. 2994 1 cmsmcq 2005-06-02 00:42:37 +0000 Quite correct. The expression for (: whom the bell :) $tolls = 3 return $tolls does appear to be illegal. The suggested replacement works fine. I haven't analysed the grammar for lookahead requirements; where do you believe longer lookahead to be required? Are there any such places not now marked with angle brackets? 4424 2 cmsmcq 2005-07-07 00:54:42 +0000 Looking at this again, I think the text would do better to describe the required lookahead not in terms of characters but in terms of terminal symbols. This unfortunately makes the sentence clumsy: "A look-ahead of one terminal symbol is required ...". So perhaps just say "Look-ahead is required ..." 4452 3 scott_boag 2005-07-09 03:36:08 +0000 (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. 4453 4 scott_boag 2005-07-09 03:36:38 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) So perhaps just say "Look-ahead is required ..." Done. 5159 5 scott_boag 2005-07-22 19:28:42 +0000 A joint meeting of the Query and XSLT working groups considered this comment on July 20, 2005. The WGs agreed to resolve these editorial issues as listed in my previous comment. If you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Reopened. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 14166 6 jim.melton 2007-02-25 23:51:44 +0000 Closing bug because commenter has not objected to the resolution posted and more than two weeks have passed.