Austin Hastings writes: > > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Austin Hastings writes: > > > > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Would that then imply that > > > > > > > > sub blah { > > > > ... # 1 > > > > return if $a; # 2 > > > > ... # 3 > > > > } > > > > > > > > ...would return $a if $a was true, and fall through to (3) if it was > > > > false? > > > > > > > > > In particular, if we kept our bottom-up parser around, this particular > > construct would cause an infinite-lookahead problem. So for ambiguity's > > sake, C<if $a> should not be a valid term without a block following. > > > > How on earth are you going to have an infinite lookahead problem when a semicolon is > the next character?
Sorry, s/\$a/some-hideously-long-condition/ Luke > =Austin >
