Clarify that component references work in this form. #3592
Conversation
It is a clarification, since it already states that they are component-references and the quoted part includes it. See modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary#4494
…r in the source. I believe this is as clear and it preserves the two important parts of the previous change: embedded space (required quoted identifier) and embedded } (more complicated quoting). It does not include a hierarchical name as that it is now explained separately. Should thus be merged after modelica#3592 Not needed, but I think it avoids issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me it would make more sense to fix this by extending
When quoted identifiers (e.g., \lstinline!rec.'}'.'quoted ident'!) are involved, the form \%\{\emph{par}\} must be used.
into
When quoted identifiers (e.g., \lstinline!rec.'}'.'quoted ident'!) or non-identifier component references (e.g., \lstinline!a.p! for the parameter \lstinline!p! in the component \lstinline!a!) are involved, the form \%\{\emph{par}\} must be used.
A better term for non-identifier component references would be great, though.
I agree with this suggestion. Otherwise it is not clear how '%a.p' is supposed to be interpreted. Are non-identifier component references the same as composite names? |
|
I have now tried to rewrite it based on the suggestions. After some attempts I realized that it would only make sense if the dot-part was separated so that we can first explain what it does, and then the special part about dots. Note that it is a bit redundant that the quoted identifier is also a composite name (and I find the specific quoted identifier hard to read), but there's #3593 for cleaning up that. |
It is a clarification, since it already states that they are component-references and the quoted part includes it.
See modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary#4494