Open
Conversation
This removes RESERVED_NUMBER and instead embeds the correctness requirements for a number in the literal productions using the cut operator. I like the idea of inlining these requirements into the grammar so that the restrictions are clear and nearer to the rules they are related to. I'm on the fence about keeping the rules describing the restrictions. In general we don't want to describe the grammar in English due to the potential ambiguity. If we do this here, why wouldn't we do this everywhere there is a cut operator? However, I think it's still helpful to include in this case. SUFFIX_NO_E is no longer needed because all of the other rules handle rejecting the E.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This removes RESERVED_NUMBER and instead embeds the correctness requirements for a number in the literal productions using the cut operator.
I like the idea of inlining these requirements into the grammar so that the restrictions are clear and nearer to the rules they are related to.
I'm on the fence about keeping the rules describing the restrictions. In general we don't want to describe the grammar in English due to the potential ambiguity. If we do this here, why wouldn't we do this everywhere there is a cut operator? However, I think it's still helpful to include in this case.
SUFFIX_NO_E is no longer needed because all of the other rules handle rejecting the E.