Clarify simple function call.

[HansOlsson]

I noticed that the issue had milestone 3.7 so I thought it best to have at least a proposal for a solution; even if we decide to postpone it.

Closes #3632

Future possibilities:

• Could group reinit, assert, terminate in a sub-section of their own (and thus move them down one level), and put this explanation at that place (but still referenced from simple equation).
• Modify the grammar as it currently contains:

some-equation :
( equation-or-procedure
  | if-equation
  | for-equation
  | connect-equation
  | when-equation
)
description

equation-or-procedure :
simple-equation
| function-call

connect-equation :
connect "(" component-reference "," component-reference ")"

To me it would be logical to group function-call and connect-equation after each other inside equation-or-procedure. However, we cannot view connect-equation as a kind of function-call as connect is a keyword and break connect-equation is used for selective model extension.

[henrikt-ma]

To me it would be logical to group function-call and connect-equation after each other inside equation-or-procedure. However, we cannot view connect-equation as a kind of function-call as connect is a keyword and break connect-equation is used for selective model extension.

The only use of equation-or-procedure and statement-or-procedure that I see is that they are mentioned non-normatively when talking about how to write a recursive descent parser. If we omitted that non-normative section, we wouldn't have to draw an artificial line between what goes directly into some-equation (statement) and what goes into equation-or-procedure (statement-or-procedure).

[HansOlsson]

Delay

[henrikt-ma]

Among other remaining issues, the statement spect of #3632 is still not addressed.

Now that 3.7 has been released and we don't have to try to rush things, I think we should also take the time to make the discussed improvements of the grammar.