On Feb 17 2021, Koichi Murase wrote: > Yes, that's what I wanted to claim by the above example, that is, XCU > 2.4 isn't the (most) essential point for the reason that `fi esac' or > `fi fi` is a valid construct. The above example is just a > counter-example against explaining `fi esac` by solely XCU 2.4.
XCU 2.4 only explains when words are to be recognized as reserved words (the lexer part of parsing). Only because of these rules the `fi esac' example contains two consecutive reserved words. The grammar depends on having these rules in place, and then applies more rules on the placement of tokens. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different."
