[Bug 28065] WebIDL: Grammar for readonly requires 2 token lookahead in some cases

# bugzilla at jessica.w3.org (5 days ago)

www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28065

Tobie Langel tobie.langel@gmail.com changed:

       What    |Removed                     |Added

             CC|                            |bzbarsky@mit.edu,
               |                            |tobie.langel@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Tobie Langel tobie.langel@gmail.com ---

This seems resolved, no?

Contact us to advertise here
# bugzilla at jessica.w3.org (5 days ago)

www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28065

--- Comment #2 from Boris Zbarsky bzbarsky@mit.edu ---

Because now ReadOnlyMember and ReadWriteAttribute are separate things under InterfaceMember?

I think so. It's a bit weird that ReadWriteAttribute includes "inherit ReadOnly AttributeRest" (as in, "ReadWriteAttribute" is a bad name for that production), but I think there's no grammar problem. I won't know for sure unless/until we try to update our grammar to match the one in the spec right now and see whether the tools complain...

# bugzilla at jessica.w3.org (5 days ago)

www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28065

Tobie Langel tobie.langel@gmail.com changed:

       What    |Removed                     |Added

         Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
     Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Tobie Langel tobie.langel@gmail.com --- (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #2)

Because now ReadOnlyMember and ReadWriteAttribute are separate things under InterfaceMember?

Yes? I still find it super hard to reason about this tbh.

I think so. It's a bit weird that ReadWriteAttribute includes "inherit ReadOnly AttributeRest" (as in, "ReadWriteAttribute" is a bad name for that production), but I think there's no grammar problem.

Agree the name is bad. I should probably do a cleanup of the grammar at some point, but I don't think it's a top priority right not.

I won't know for sure unless/until we try to update our grammar to match the one in the spec right now and see whether the tools complain...

Sounds good. I'll close this as invalid (not sure what the keyword is for "no longer an issue"). And we can file a new issue if this turns out to be a problem again.

# bugzilla at jessica.w3.org (5 days ago)

www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28065

Boris Zbarsky bzbarsky@mit.edu changed:

       What    |Removed                     |Added

     Resolution|INVALID                     |WORKSFORME

Want more features?

Request early access to our private beta of readable email premium.