Hi David, On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM, David Adler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > In draft 7, in section 7.1.1, <non-digit> is <dot subsequent> | > <explicit sign>. However, an <explicit sign> is also a <dot subsequent>, > so it seems that <non-digit> is unnecessary. Given that its only use is > in <peculiar identifier>, which also mentions <dot subsequent>, could > <non-digit> be eliminated to clarify that two choices from <peculiar > identifier> differ only by the inclusion of an <explicit sign>? > > | <explicit sign> . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>* > | . <non-digit> <subsequent>* > > instead becomes > > | <explicit sign> . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>* > | . <dot subsequent> <subsequent>* > > Of course, <non-digit> would also be a perfectly good name for the > collapsed nonterminal. > Yes, I believe you are correct. We'll double check and make this simplification, thanks. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
