Am I right that attributeId is in fact the rmAttributeName? Shouldn't or the spec, or the grammar be in sync regarding to naming?
(excuse for the camelcase)
Bert, can you provide a URL to the spec paragraph or Git resource in question?
base_patterns.g4:attribute_id : ALPHA_LC_ID ;
cadl.g4:c_attribute: adl_dir? attribute_id ( c_existence | c_cardinality | c_existence c_cardinality )
I have updated the grammar to use rm_attribute_id and rm_type_id instead of attribute_id and type_id. These names are not exactly the same, but that's intended. In the grammar a 'type_id' is what it says, the identifier for a type; in the AOM, C_OBJECT.rm_type is the name of the field containing such a type_id.