Should "Literal" in syntactical grammar instead of lexical grammar?
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Feb 28 08:07:16 PST 2012
Yes, Literal could be moved to the syntactic grammar. There is already some grammar refactoring like this going on in the Es6 draft.
The best way to capture these sorts of editorial issues is to file a bug using bugs.ecmascript.org against the current Es6 draft.
On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Indeed this has come up before:
> No one replied then, alas.
> There's no normative significance, as Michael Dyck conjectured. It seems we could move Literal. Perhaps Waldemar or Allen has a preference. At this point I am ok with letting the traditional location of Literal stand.
> 程劭非 wrote:
>> Hi, everyone,
>> I'm working a on ES parser recently and noticed something might be wrong about the symbol “Literal”.
>> Since “Literal” and “StringLiteral" "NumericLiteral" appears in lexical grammar , I believe “Literal” should be a non-terminal symbol. Also there is no other rule using “Literal” in lexical grammar. As all above I think the following description is a syntactical grammar rule instead of a lexical grammar rule:
>> /Literal /*::
>> So my suggest is moving the description from Annex A.1 to Annex A.3
>> Shaofei Cheng
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss