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

[David Adler <d.adler.s@x>]

Hi,

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.

- David Adler

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports