GNU bug report logs - #6591
24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Andreas Schwab'" <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
Cc: 'Chong Yidong' <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>, 6591 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 'Richard Stallman' <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: bug#6591: 24.0.50; incorrect doc for `catch'
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:50:09 -0700

> BODY... repeatedly matches all the arguments folling TAG.

Irrelevant - just word play.

The point is that `...' typically means, when describing syntax, that whatever
it follows can be repeated.  That is, it is legitimate _syntax_ to repeat any
number of whatevers.  Whether `...' means zero or more or one or more is up for
grabs.  In the Oracle docs it means zero or more, so when one or more is meant
you write `X X...', not `X...'.


And as I mentioned, _if_ there is a need to specify the scope of a `...' then we
will need to introduce a grouping construct.  Braces are sometimes used for this
(e.g. in both Oracle and Common Lisp doc - Oracle just uses a form of BNF).

E.g. `X {A B}...' means X followed by zero or more occurrences of `A B' (A
followed by B).

We might have no need for such grouping - dunno.  If we do, and _if_ we also
sometimes use braces literally in the syntax (which I doubt), then we would also
need a way to distinguish braces as syntax symbols (meta) from literal braces.
I doubt that we need this either.  I'm just mentioning that it is part of the
machinery needed in general to specify repetition: just what is it that is
repeatable.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.