Issue 1681:  Syntactic category <Factor> includes <Ident> and \<Ident>...Why? (notif_service-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Clarification
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Secondly, I"d like to have something clarified, if possible. The
 syntactic category <Factor> includes <Ident> and \ <Ident>. What is the
 reason for this? It seems to me that the only use for <Ident> in this
 context is as a check for the existence of a runtime variable. $var is
 used to denote the value of runtime variable var. However the "exist"
 operator is used for this.
 
 Would the semantics be any clearer if "$" was not used for runtime
 variables at all? In this case a standalone <Ident> (not part of the
 current event) would denote a variable.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
July 15, 1998: received issue
February 23, 1999: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <briggs@dstc.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:24:56 +1000
From: briggs <briggs@dstc.edu.au>
Organization: DSTC Pty Ltd
To: issues@omg.org
CC: notification@dstc.edu.au, briggs@dstc.edu.au
Subject: Notification Service Issues

Hello everyone,

I'd like to raise some issues concerning the Notification Service
constraint language.


Secondly, I'd like to have something clarified, if possible. The
syntactic category <Factor> includes <Ident> and \ <Ident>. What is
the
reason for this? It seems to me that the only use for <Ident> in this
context is as a check for the existence of a runtime variable. $var is
used to denote the value of runtime variable var. However the 'exist'
operator is used for this.

Would the semantics be any clearer if '$' was not used for runtime
variables at all? In this case a standalone <Ident> (not part of the
current event) would denote a variable. This has nothing to do with
<Ident> being used for an enum, because that would still be contained
in
the event. If this were to be the case, the grammar would have to be
altered to allow for structured runtime variables.

Possibly I've misinterpreted the intended uses. In that case, could
someone give me a clue where to find clarification. The documentation
in
Section 2.4 of the spec seems somewhat confused, and the examples even
contain some syntax errors.

Thanks
--
Mark Briggs