Thank you for the comments.
There might be no normative significance but I mean there is no way to put the "Literal" production in a lexer. If a lexer produce token with type ”Literal“, syntactical parser will not be able to decide to use it as a ”Literal“ or a ”StringLiteral“.
So I think keeping this rule in current location might confuse the ones who want to implement this spec.
Thanks,
Shaofei Cheng
2012/2/28 Brendan Eich
<brendan@...>
Indeed this has come up before:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2011-January/003900.html
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.
/be
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 /*::
***/NullLiteral/
/BooleanLiteral
NumericLiteral
StringLiteral/
/RegularExpressionLiteral/
So my suggest is moving the description from Annex A.1 to Annex A.3
Thanks,
Shaofei Cheng
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
