Issue 5952: BNF changes (corba-rtf) Source: Micro Focus (Dr. Jishnu Mukerji, jishnu(at)microfocus.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: BTW I think the twiddle is incomplete because it is not reflected in the BNF for Identifier. I think it is better if the BNF always reflects the ultimate specification of a language's lexical definition. Otherwise compiler writers are apt to miss the subtleties. I'll propose some BNF changes if others agree Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 25, 2003: received issue April 11, 2012: Deferred Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:14:18 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Software Business Unit, Hewlett-Packard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: bill.beckwith@ois.com, Juergen Boldt Cc: core-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org Subject: Re: Illegal PIDL - create_request bill.beckwith@ois.com wrote: At 05:28 PM 6/24/2003, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: Actually _request is correct IDL. This additional twiddle was added to IDL for fixing exactly this sort of problem without changing the generated code. Take a look at Section 3.2.3.1 "Escaped Identifier" in CORBA 3.0 (formal 02-06-33). Interesting. Thanks. I read the section. The "_" still doesn't make this IDL legal: This is a purely lexical convention that ONLY turns off keyword checking. The resulting identifier follows all the other rules for identifier processing. So there is still a Request/request clash. I believe you are right. It turns out that in the published fileset this line in question has already been changed to read: Request req; So let us just incorporate that fix editorially into the pubslisehd specification, and be done with this part. Juergen, Please do not create an issue for fixing the Request/request clash. I will deal with it editorially with Linda. But do create an issue for the following paragraph. BTW I think the twiddle is incomplete because it is not reflected in the BNF for Identifier. I think it is better if the BNF always reflects the ultimate specification of a language's lexical definition. Otherwise compiler writers are apt to miss the subtleties. I'll propose some BNF changes if others agree. Thanks, Jishnu. -- Jishnu Mukerji Senior Systems Architect 1001 Frontier Road, Suite 300 Strategy & Technology Office Bridgewater NJ 08807, USA Software Business Unit Tel: +1 908 243 8924 Hewlett-Packard Company Fax: +1 908 243 8850 mailto: jishnu@hp.com X-Sender: beckwb@192.168.10.3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:34:56 -0400 To: Jishnu Mukerji From: bill.beckwith@ois.com Subject: Re: Illegal PIDL - create_request Cc: Juergen Boldt , core-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org At 06:14 PM 6/24/2003, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >bill.beckwith@ois.com wrote: >>At 05:28 PM 6/24/2003, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >>It turns out that in the published fileset this line in question has already been changed to read: > > Request req; Fine by me. >So let us just incorporate that fix editorially into the pubslisehd specification, and be done with this part. > >Juergen, > >Please do not create an issue for fixing the Request/request clash. I will deal with it editorially with Linda. Good solution. >But do create an issue for the following paragraph. > >>BTW I think the twiddle is incomplete because it is not reflected >>in the BNF for Identifier. I think it is better if the BNF always >>reflects the ultimate specification of a language's lexical >>definition. Otherwise compiler writers are apt to miss the >>subtleties. >>I'll propose some BNF changes if others agree. O.K. Bill Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:38:18 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Software Business Unit, Hewlett-Packard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Bill Beckwith , corba-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 5952 - Core RTF issue Juergen Boldt wrote: This is issue # 5952 Jishnu Mukerji From: bill.beckwith@ois.com Subject: Re: issue 5952 - Core RTF issue Cc: corba-rtf@omg.org At 03:38 PM 8/27/2003, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: >Juergen Boldt wrote: >>This is issue # 5952 Jishnu Mukerji > >>BNF changes >>BTW I think the twiddle is incomplete because it is not reflected >>in the BNF for Identifier. I think it is better if the BNF always >>reflects the ultimate specification of a language's lexical >>definition. Otherwise compiler writers are apt to miss the >>subtleties. >>I'll propose some BNF changes if others agree > >But it is described in the section that discusses the lexical structure of identifiers (section 3.2.3.1 is a subsection of section 3.2.3 whihc discusses the lexical structure of identifiers). Section 3.2.3.1 says that this is a lexical escape mechanism so I don;t understand how any BNF is involved. Or were you proposing to provide BNF for the lexical descritpion of an identifier that appears in section 3.2.3? > >Unless it is explained to me what I am missing my recommendation would be to close this issue no change with the explanation as above. I'll cook up a recommendation. Bill Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:06:59 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Software Business Unit, Hewlett-Packard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: bill.beckwith@ois.com Cc: corba-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 5952 - Core RTF issue Bill, I believe this is a non-issue. So please first explain to me why this is an issue before recommending anything. Thanks, Jishnu. bill.beckwith@ois.com wrote: At 03:38 PM 8/27/2003, Jishnu Mukerji wrote: Juergen Boldt wrote: This is issue # 5952 Jishnu Mukerji