Open hernot opened 2 years ago
Just a quick question as i came across while trying to figure a solution for issue #13.
Are there any reasons why the SPGenerator defines
unreportedname := '<', ts, name, ts, '>' reportedname := '>', ts, name, ts, '<'
while all the examples in documentation, the ebnf grammar in the documentation and the declaration string define the same as
declaration
unreportedname := '<', name, '>' expandedname := '>', name, '<'
Is this discrepancy between documented and actual definition by intention? Which definition should be used to resolve and which should be adopted accordingly?
For testing i temporarily pick documented definition and adopt actual.
Just a quick question as i came across while trying to figure a solution for issue #13.
Are there any reasons why the SPGenerator defines
while all the examples in documentation, the ebnf grammar in the documentation and the
declaration
string define the same asIs this discrepancy between documented and actual definition by intention? Which definition should be used to resolve and which should be adopted accordingly?
For testing i temporarily pick documented definition and adopt actual.