Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: phil@cs.wwu.edu (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Questions/comments about POSIX bc (P1003.2/D11)
Summary: I found some problems...
Keywords: POSIX bc
Message-ID: <131021@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 30 Apr 91 00:44:42 GMT
Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET
Reply-To: phil@cs.wwu.edu
Organization: Western Washington University
Lines: 43
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET

Submitted-by: phil@cs.wwu.edu (Phil Nelson)

Hello,

  I've been working on an implementation of bc and have been
using the POSIX draft as a definition of the language.  In
working on the program, I have found several problems with
the draft.  I have P1003.2/D11 and any line number references
are from that draft.  The following are what I consider to be
problems.  If I am wrong, please help me understand what the
committee intended.

  1)  The character '-' "shall" be recognized as both the token
      ADD_OP and the token '-'.
      lines: 1587, 1670, 1737, 1738, 1749-1751

  2)  Lines 1642-1644 are
         parameter_list       : LETTER
                              | define_list ',' LETTER
      I presume it should be
         parameter_list       : LETTER
                              | parameter_list ',' LETTER

  3)  Lines 1836-1838 state "A whole array passed as an argument
      shall be specified by the array name followed by empty square
      brackets." 
      a) I find no provision in the grammar in the definition of the
         parameter list define a parameter as an array.  (See lines
         1642-1644.)
      b) No provision is made in the grammar for the specification of
         an array in the actual function call. (See 1657-1659.)


  I am interested in knowing if these have been noticed before and if
  there are changes to the draft.

  Phil Nelson
  phil@cs.wwu.edu




Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 53