Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#189 closed defect (fixed)

Two concerns on syntax tree

Reported by: Carsten Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone: Version 2.1
Component: unit definitions Keywords:


I have 2 concerns about the complete syntax tree outlined in Exhibit 1 here:


This definition of <term> must be wrong since it points to itself as the last option. Instead, the third option ought to be <component> right?

<term> ::= <term>“.”<component> | <term>“/”<component> | <term>

Suggested Fix:

<term> ::= <term>“.”<component> | <term>“/”<component> | <component>


For the <simple-unit> rule, this seems to suggest that any <PREFIX-SYMBOL> may be used with any <ATOM-SYMBOL>, but that is not the case since only the SI units may use the prefixes right?


Suggested Fix:



Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by Gunther Schadow

Component: helpunit definitions
Milestone: Version 2.1
Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

First: yes you seem to be right. Fixed.

Second: we did not intend to include the disallowability of prefix-atom pairing in this syntax. I have added a bracket <ATOM-SYMBOL[metric]> to indicate this as a constraint, referring to our "metric" property (as the combinability with a prefix applies to units other than SI).

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.