Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Oct 2015, at 14:27, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > I have a couple more minor queries/observations as I work through some of
> > the details of ABNF grammar:
> >
> > 1. For the module-stmt rule below, to be strictly correct, should it have a
> > comment stating that the statements in any of the "*-stmts" blocks can
> > appear in any order? Or is the intention that the "*-stmt" blocks must
> > strictly be in the order defined by the ABNF? If the latter statement is
> > true then does any of the text in 7.1 need to be strengthened to explicitly
> > state this?
>
> I understand the order is fixed in this case.
Yes.
> > module-stmt = optsep module-keyword sep identifier-arg-str
> > optsep
> > "{" stmtsep
> > module-header-stmts
> > linkage-stmts
> > meta-stmts
> > revision-stmts
> > body-stmts
> > "}" optsep
> >
> >
> > 2. Similarly for import-stmt. Should this have a comment indicating that
> > prefix-stmt or revision-date-stmt can appear in any order?
> >
> > import-stmt = import-keyword sep identifier-arg-str optsep
> > "{" stmtsep
> > prefix-stmt
> > [revision-date-stmt]
> > "}" stmtsep
>
> Here it IMO makes little sense to require fixed order.
Correct. I have added the comment to this statement as well.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
