Make the grammar more consistent, and explain rewrite based on feedback.

[HansOlsson]

During the conference we got feedback that the grammar is ambiguous.

I understand that the problem is due to trying to make the grammar more logical - but:

• We should be consistent; so that equations and statements are treated in a similar way.
• We might as well explain it - people familiar with parsers should just be able to read the grammar.

[HansOlsson]

We could also add:
Similarly if output-expression-list is not merely an expression it is only allowed in statement as explicitly given and in equation-or-procedure matching "(" output-expression-list ")" = component-reference function-call-args

[henrikt-ma]

I am not against rewriting the production rules per se, but I'd like to hear exactly which ambiguity that was reported during the conference?

[HansOlsson]

I am not against rewriting the production rules per se, but I'd like to hear exactly which ambiguity that was reported during the conference?

Added above.

[henrikt-ma]

Let's settle what to do with the example at the next phone meeting!

[HansOlsson]

Language group: Shorten by removing production rules.

[HansOlsson]

Language group: Shorten by removing production rules.

Now done.

[henrikt-ma]

Only suggesting to omit the See below. The rest is looking good.

[henrikt-ma]

Sorry, I missed one more thing.

[henrikt-ma]

Sorry, then it was the indentation…

[henrikt-ma]

Looks good.