Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X1, X2, etc. etc. etc.

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Paulo:
> As you describe them, they seem to be syntactical simplifications --
> something to make grammar more orthogonal.

Exactly. There is nothing really new that you can say with these
changes, but you can say what you could before in a simpler manner.

> Should I assume you checked
> whether the LALR(1) property still holds?

I didn't personally (I wouldn't know how), but I believe John checked
them when I first proposed them last year and there was no problem.

> If so, all three changes
> sound OK (but I'll bet many people won't be satisfied with the JA/JOI
> quasi-equivalence :-)

Those who don't like the extension don't have to use it, but I don't
see why should there be an arbitrary restriction in something that seems
natural within the scheme of the language.

Jorge