On 2/9/2023 7:28 AM, Gavin Bierman wrote:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep430/latest
In 2.1, if we're going with the term "ambiguous", we should have some
rationale for why the well known term "context-sensitive" isn't good enough.
I don't want to lose the term "context-free" entirely. Perhaps a note in
2.2: "In early versions of the Java programming language, the lexical
grammar was not ambiguous. Rather, it was _context-free_, meaning that ...".
In 2.3, it is incongruous that there is no statement about whether the
syntactic grammar is ambiguous.
In 3.13, the content of a fragment is defined statefully/positionally,
e.g., StringTemplateBegin: "... ends immediately before the sequence \{
that prefixes ***the first*** embedded expression" e.g.,
StringTemplateEnd: "... begins immediately after the character } that
postfixes ***the final*** embedded expression" I don't think this
statefulness is used to resolve ambiguities. If you defined "content"
purely as the sequence of characters in the StringFragment of a
StringTemplateBegin/Mid/End, do you lose anything?
Regarding the note at the end of 3.13:
The 4 and the 2 are separate input characters, they should have a space
between them.
Please say "input character" throughout, not "character".
"The next twelve characters ~would be~ +are+ reduced to the tokens ..."
I was tripped up by `the following two input characters (i.e. the
sequence } } ")` -- the word "two" is followed by an example of three
characters -- contrast this with the later clause which puts the word
"two" next to an example with two characters: `two input characters (the
sequence } ")` Let's be super-clear:
The next input character, }, is ambiguous. It could be reduced to a
Separator, or it could be reduced along with the following } and "
input characters to a StringTemplateEnd.
...
The remaining } and " input characters will then be reduced to a
StringTemplateEnd.
The phrase "... provide the context of matching the ArrayInitializer" is
used. Given the earlier bullet -- "... was not in the context of being
recognized as a terminal ..." -- I was looking out for the word
"recognizing" rather than "matching".
Alex
