1382 2005-05-11 07:34:58 +0000 [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 grammar-note: occurrence-indicators 2007-02-25 23:52:53 +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 3408 0 jmdyck 2005-05-11 07:34:58 +0000 A.1.1 grammar-note: occurrence-indicators [See a later comment for suggested alternate wording.] "Any occurrence of '+' and '*', as well as '?', following a sequence type is assumed to be an occurrence indicator." Even when the only possible derivation says it's not an occurrence indicator? So in 4 treat as item() + 5 the '+' is assumed to be an occurrence indicator, which would then lead to a syntax error? Probably yes, but might be good to say so. 3150 1 scott_boag 2005-05-17 15:52:42 +0000 > Even when the only possible derivation says it's not an occurrence > indicator? So in > 4 treat as item() + 5 > the '+' is assumed to be an occurrence indicator, which would then lead to a > syntax error? Probably yes, but might be good to say so. Yes, and it does say so. But it could be clarified, along with an example. 4430 2 cmsmcq 2005-07-07 03:22:24 +0000 Here is a proposed rewording to make clearer that the priority rule applies in all cases, not just cases of ambiguity. As written, the grammar in A.1 is ambiguous for some forms using the '+' and '*' Kleene operators. The ambiguity is resolved as follows: these operators are tightly bound to the SequenceType expression, and have higher precedence than other uses of these symbols. Any occurrence of '+' and '*', as well as '?', following a sequence type is assumed to be an occurrence indicator. That is, a "+", "*", or "?" immediately following an ItemType MUST be an OccurrenceIndicator. Thus, "4 treat as item() + - 5" MUST be interpreted as (4 treat as item()+) - 5, taking the '+' as an OccurrenceIndicator and the '-' as a subtraction operator. To force the interpretation of "+" as an addition operator (and the corresponding interpretation of the "-" as a unary minus), parentheses may be used: the form "(4 treat as item()) + -5" surrounds the SequenceType expression with parentheses and leads to the desired interpretation. This rule has as a consequence that certain forms which would otherwise be legal and unambiguous are not recognized: in "4 treat as item() + 5", the "+" is taken as an OccurrenceIndicator, and not as an operator, which means this is not a legal expression. 4460 3 scott_boag 2005-07-09 05:17:51 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Here is a proposed rewording to make clearer that the > priority rule applies in all cases, not just cases of > ambiguity. I've adapted your rewording. 5170 4 scott_boag 2005-07-22 19:36:34 +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. 14170 5 jim.melton 2007-02-25 23:52:53 +0000 Closing bug because commenter has not objected to the resolution posted and more than two weeks have passed.