On 15-04-28 06:26 PM, Benito van der Zander wrote:
Or in
1<<a>2</a>
as "<" and "<a>2</a>"
"<<" is longer, but not consistent.
"<<" is longer than "<", and there are continuations of "1<<" that
conform to the EBNF, so the LMP rule compels the tokenizer to pick "<<",
which leads to raising an error at ">". Ghislain also said this yesterday.
It's unclear what you mean by "consistent". If you mean that having the
tokenizer pick "<<" is not consistent with parsing the string as:
Perhaps getting a consistent parsing tree?
Well, again, if you're saying that having the tokenizer pick "<<" does not
result in a "consistent parsing tree", that's quite true, because it doesn't
result in *any* parse tree.
Theoretically a parser could parse it right-to-left and see <a>2</a> before <
Theoretically, yes. But the thinking behind the LMP rule was presumably a
left-to-right tokenization.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
