On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Joseph Spencer wrote: > Would it not be beneficial to bring Annex A into greater conformity with > the rest of the spec at this point? > > Such changes seem relatively safe (to a noobie that is ;), as any code > produced moving forward by devs would still parse just fine under older > implementations that allowed for the unwanted syntax. It seems that > doing so would also bring the ecosystem of implementations into greater > alignment moving forward. >
Annex A is just a informative summary of the normative BNF that is scattered through-out the rest of the document, so I think what you are really suggesting that w try to express more of the static semantics using the normative grammar. For the ES6 spec. I'm actually going in a different direction which is more algorithmic specification of the static semantic restrictions on syntactically valid programs. Many of these restrictions concern non-local feature interactions that are difficult or impossible to express purely using a non-attributed BNF. If you haven't already, you should take a look at the ES6 draft http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts Just this morning, I wrote static semantic rules that cover the Postfix and PrefixExpression (and other assignment contexts) that you had noted. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
