Semantics of `has`
jeswr opened this issue · comments
The semantics of has are not well defined in the spec. I'm guessing that <a> has <b> <c> . is the same as <a> [ <b> <c> ] . But I'm not sure.
@jeswr You are right that this is not mentioned in the spec, aside from the grammar (the same for "is .. of" and "<-"). This is an oversight and should be corrected.
It is actually quite simple - :a has :b :c means :a :b :c. It's pretty useless but it made it into the current grammar, likely for backward compatibility. (I believe it was originally introduced for cases such as william has father paul, i.e., to clarify the meaning of certain property names.)
Thanks for the answer - will leave open as a reminder to add a mention to the spec.
Fixed by latest spec update.