On 2/19/21 3:32 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:30:25 -0500
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <2b32112c-de72-c713-3f87-6840828c3...@case.edu>
| Nope, it's consistent with the standard.
I can understand that argument.
| that's not a fair reading
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:30:25 -0500
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <2b32112c-de72-c713-3f87-6840828c3...@case.edu>
| Nope, it's consistent with the standard.
I can understand that argument.
| that's not a fair reading of rule 4.
Whenever we need to rely upon
On 2/19/21 12:56 PM, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
bash's behaviour is a little weird:
Nope, it's consistent with the standard.
bash5 $case esac in
(esac) echo match
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `esac'
bash5 $esac
-bash: syntax error near
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:13:09 +
From:"Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID:
| The grammar only allows the '(' in a case_item or case_item_ns.
Yes. as you will have seen from my later reply (to my own message) I
realised that
Date:Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:56:34 +0700
From:"Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <23942.1613757...@jinx.noi.kre.to>
Upon reflection:
| The statement "case foo in (esac" is valid according to the grammar,
perhaps it isn't, though I suspect
On 19/02/2021 17:56, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:11:58 +
From:"Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <4b4f2cbf-2a2e-f0bf-34ca-a7357f99c...@gigawatt.nl>
| Observe that rule 4 is applied for the first word in a
All
Enclosed are the minutes from yesterday’s call
regards
Andrew
---
Minutes of the 18th February 2021 Teleconference Austin-1104 Page 1 of 1
Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. 19th February 2021
Attendees:
Nick Stoughton, USENIX, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:11:58 +
From:"Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <4b4f2cbf-2a2e-f0bf-34ca-a7357f99c...@gigawatt.nl>
| Observe that rule 4 is applied for the first word in a pattern even if
| that pattern follows an
Date:Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:52:19 -0800
From:"Donn Terry via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID:
| I agree with the existing-implementations policy, but making it clear
| that the committee was looking for an improvement (and setting some
| clear
At that point in the grammar TOKEN is "esac)" or "(esac)", from which the WORD
"esac" is extracted, not converted to Esac, as right paren is not an operator
character that terminates token recognition. Rule 4 applies to "esac ;" or
"esac" linebreak, no right paren discovered on lookahead, that
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//opengroup.org//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.22.1//
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20120311T02
On 2/19/21 11:21 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
There is no way to apply rule 4 to produce "a token identifier acceptable at
that point in the grammar". The only token identifier acceptable at that
point in the grammar is WORD, and rule 4 does not produce WORD. Rule
On 2/19/21 11:22 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Yes, rule 4 is applied there, but your mistake is in assuming that
the *result* of rule 4 is that the token is converted to an Esac.
How is it not? "the [sic] TOKEN is exactly the reserved word esac" at this
point.
Chet Ramey wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
>
> On 2/19/21 10:33 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
>
> > > Observe that rule 4 is applied for the first word in a pattern even if
> > > that
> > > pattern follows an opening parenthesis. Because of that, in my example,
> > > the
>
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
>
> On 19/02/2021 15:33, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> > Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
> > >
> > > On 19/02/2021 15:04, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> > > wrote:
> > > > Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19
On 2/19/21 10:52 AM, Donn Terry via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
It was oh so many years ago that I originally wrote that hideously awful
grammar to try to reflect what the ksh did, which was very much ad-hoc
parsing. I won't apologise for the ksh language the grammar tries to
On 2/19/21 10:33 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Observe that rule 4 is applied for the first word in a pattern even if that
pattern follows an opening parenthesis. Because of that, in my example, the
esac in parentheses is interpreted as the esac keyword token, not
On 19/02/2021 15:33, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
On 19/02/2021 15:04, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
On 19/02/2021 09:59, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The
It was oh so many years ago that I originally wrote that hideously awful
grammar to try to reflect what the ksh did, which was very much ad-hoc
parsing. I won't apologise for the ksh language the grammar tries to
reflect, or for the grammar itself since ksh is definitely not context-free
and thus
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
>
> On 19/02/2021 15:04, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> > Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
> > >
> > > On 19/02/2021 09:59, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> > > wrote:
> > > > How about changing that
On 19/02/2021 15:04, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
On 19/02/2021 09:59, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
How about changing that problem sentence in 2.10.1 to:
When a TOKEN is seen where one of
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 19 Feb 2021:
>
> On 19/02/2021 09:59, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> > How about changing that problem sentence in 2.10.1 to:
> >
> > When a TOKEN is seen where one of those annotated productions could
> > be used to reduce the
On 19/02/2021 09:59, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
How about changing that problem sentence in 2.10.1 to:
When a TOKEN is seen where one of those annotated productions could
be used to reduce the symbol, the applicable rule shall be applied to
convert
> --
> (0005246) kre (reporter) - 2021-02-18 10:32
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1454#c5246
> --
> Re
24 matches
Mail list logo
