Re: Should "Literal" in syntactical grammar instead of lexical grammar?

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.

Allen

On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:

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