[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Comment on draft 7 regarding <non-digit>

Hi David,

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM, David Adler <d.adler.s@x> wrote:

In draft 7, in section 7.1.1, <non-digit> is <dot subsequent> |
<explicit sign>. However, an <explicit sign> is also a <dot subsequent>,
so it seems that <non-digit> is unnecessary. Given that its only use is
in <peculiar identifier>, which also mentions <dot subsequent>, could
<non-digit> be eliminated to clarify that two choices from <peculiar
identifier> differ only by the inclusion of an <explicit sign>?

| <explicit sign> . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>*
| . <non-digit> <subsequent>*

instead becomes

| <explicit sign> . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>*
| . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>*

Of course, <non-digit> would also be a perfectly good name for the
collapsed nonterminal.

Yes, I believe you are correct.  We'll double check
and make this simplification, thanks.


Scheme-reports mailing list