Re: [sv-ec] BNF problem with 2575 proposal

From: Neil Korpusik <Neil.Korpusik_at_.....>
Date: Sat Jun 06 2009 - 12:06:03 PDT
In the sv-ec conference call held June 1st, Arturo mentioned
that he didn't completely agree. Hopefully Arturo will have
time to provide more details.

Neil



On 06/04/09 08:01, jonathan.bromley@doulos.com wrote:
> Shalom wrote:
> 
>> If I had a vote, I would vote NO on Mantis 2575 for the reason 
>> detailed in a bug note:
>>
>> The proposal makes the following BNF change:
>> FROM
>> constant_primary ::=
>> ...
>> | ps_parameter_identifier constant_select
>> TO
>> constant_primary ::=
>> ...
>> | [package_scope | class_scope] parameter_identifier constant_select
> [...]
>> It seems to me more logical to make the change in 
> ps_parameter_identifier:
>> ps_parameter_identifier ::=
>>   [ package_scope | class_scope ] parameter_identifier
>> | { generate_block_identifier [ [ constant_expression ] ] . } 
>> parameter_identifier
> 
> I agree, and will vote NO for this reason.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Sat Jun 6 12:06:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 06 2009 - 12:07:38 PDT