[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Issues with <comment> grammar rule
- To: Mike Morgan <lordzoner@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Issues with <comment> grammar rule
- From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:11:14 +0900
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <CAL9j_P6Y2U2zpmCvFniMMMk2fywtdG6vNO=s5Oa1sVU8hkh2uQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAL9j_P6Y2U2zpmCvFniMMMk2fywtdG6vNO=s5Oa1sVU8hkh2uQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Mike Morgan <lordzoner@x> wrote:
> In the grammar of the sixth "small" draft, I noticed two small issues for the
> <comment> rule (section 7.1.1).
> 1) In the first choice of the <comment> rule, it lists <all subsequent
> characters up to a line break>. However, the spec does not define exactly
> what constitutes a line break.
> 2) The third choice of the rule uses <atmosphere> to separate `#;' from the
> datum it comments. However, the <atmosphere> rule will match exactly one
> comment or whitespace character, which is surely not what is intended. This
> could be fixed by using <intertoken space> in its place.
Thanks Mike, both fixed.
Note there was rough consensus earlier that line break
should be NL, CR+NL and CR, but not the Unicode NEL,
so I'm going with that. If someone disagrees we can
file a ticket.
Scheme-reports mailing list