[sc34wg3] Fwd: Re: TMQL: Grammar broken II

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Robert,

[...]
> First off, the spec says in 3.1 Syntax Conventions

>    "This grammar was produced for human consumption and is not
>     optimized for a particular parsing method or for a minimum of
>     non-terminals."

> That implies that the grammar is not LL(k) or LR(k) or LALR, or
> anything. It also implies that in


I didn't implied that, but I'd expect that grammar is correct. ;)


[...]
> So whoever or whatever claims that

>    // person -- // evildoer

> is a query expression is incorrect

rho is incorrect. qed. ;)

>   ( // person -- // evildoer )

> is. If that is somewhere inside the TMQL spec, plz let me know.

4.7 Composite Content, 3rd example.

Well, if you interpret the 3rd example as an example where you're *in*
the "content" rule, it is valid, actually. But I interpreted it as the
start of a query expression, like the 2nd example.


Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>