Issue 1253:  New lexical type - Keyword Identifie (obv-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Revision
Severity: 
Summary: Summary:  Section 5.4.2 "New lexical type - Keyword Identifier" the statement is made that
 "new keyword identifiers should only be added such that the resulting grammar is
 still easily parsable, e.g. is LALR(1).". It seems to me that is not true even for
 the newly introduced keyword identifiers in many cases.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
April 28, 1998: received issue
July 30, 1998: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Issue 1253 (David Morrill)
-------------------------
 Section 5.4.2 'New lexical type - Keyword Identifier' the statement
is made that
"new keyword identifiers should only be added such that the resulting
grammar is
still easily parsable, e.g. is LALR(1).". It seems to me that is not
true even for
the newly introduced keyword identifiers in many cases. Consider the
following:
 
module foo {
    interface public { ... };     // The following are legal since the
new keyword
	                              // identifiers occur in a
context
    interface custom { ... };  // which expects an identifier.
    value safe { ... };
 
    value foo2: safe { ... };   // Is this legal or an error?
    value foo3: safe safe { ... };  // What about this?
    value foo4 {
        public x;    // Is this legal or an error? 
        public public y;  // What about this? 
        custom value();    // Is this a valid operation or a syntax
error? 
    }; 
};
 
There is room for several possible interpretations of these cases (and
the many
others like them), including ones that require the grammar to be
non-LALR(1).
I would appreciate further clarification as to how these cases are to
be handled.