Brendan Eich wrote: > On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: >> >> Er, you are right, I should have acknowedged this point. The rest of >> my post is about x++() not being a valid sentence, which supports your >> argument. >> >> While we don't have any usability problems, and torturous statements >> such as >> >> let (a = 1) a ? f : x++(); >> >> are not written by real users (they'd parenthesize to clear up >> things), I agree that we don't want the "prove a negative" problem.
It can rear up accidentally with semicolon insertion. Split the example across two lines: let (a = 1) a ? f : x++ (...) > This shows a problem with ES4's reliance on top-down parser > construction. We never created an LR(1) grammar (ignoring ASI and the > other exceptions that don't fit in LR-anything, and solving dangling > else as is customary). To avoid the "prove a negative" problem, we need > one. IIRC you have one -- can you share it via ecmascript.org? The old ES4 grammar is machine-verified LR(1). It's on: http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/old-es4/ Waldemar _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
