[sc34wg3] Fwd: Re: TMQL: Grammar broken II

[Robert Barta]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:55:47PM +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:

> > That implies that the grammar is not LL(k) or LR(k) or LALR, or
> > anything. It also implies that in

> I didn't implied that, but I'd expect that grammar is correct. ;)

Not sure what you mean here.

> >   ( // person -- // evildoer )
> 
> > is. If that is somewhere inside the TMQL spec, plz let me know.
> 
> 4.7 Composite Content, 3rd example.
> 
> Well, if you interpret the 3rd example as an example where you're *in*
> the "content" rule, it is valid, actually. But I interpreted it as the
> start of a query expression, like the 2nd example.

So is it now wrong in your opinion or not?

The example text says (there is actually a typo, fixed):

   To following tuple expression can be used to find all good people
   in the universe:

       // person -- // evildoer

If it says "tuple expression", then maybe then this is what is meant
:-) In contrast, the example above says "query expression".

\rho