<Re:lexical description problem in language report?>

[To Anthony Widjaja]

<Hi Gary,

Sorry I'm not answering your question. But I just want to know what sort of book (or perhaps something else) that contains this problem?
Because you said in section 2.2, 2.3 and so on. 


On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:51:40 -0700 "Memovich, Gary" <GARY.MEMOVICH@kla-tencor.com> wrote:
I believe I've found a problem, or at least a confusion, in the Haskell 98
Language Report.  The section on lexical structure seems to use the term
"lexeme" in an inconsistent way.  "lexeme" is one of the productions in the
lexical grammar in section 2.2, but the term is also used in section 2.3
where it is claimed that the string "{-" is a lexeme. However the string
"{-" cannot be produced by the given grammar production.  Is section 2.3,
and the discussion of the maximal-munch rule, using the term lexeme in a
different way than the grammar production in section 2.2?  If so, maybe a
new term should be introduced such as "rawlexeme", with a production like:
 
rawlexeme -> lexeme | opencom | closecom | dashes
 
Then perhaps the maximal-munch rule could be described in terms of
"rawlexeme".
 
Any thoughts?
-- Gary
>

Sign up for your FREE E-MAIL @ COMETMAIL: 
http://www.cometmail.com