On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Sam Harwell wrote: > Ternary for C++ is even stranger, though I'm not sure it's necessary to > support it at this point.
C/C++ do it differently? > > x ? a : b = c > > should parse as this in C++: > > (? x a (= b c)) ack. > But as this is C (which is found to be invalid at a later time since the > ternary operator cannot return an lvalue in C): > > (= (? x a b) c) > > However, in both C and C++ the following: > > x = c ? a : b > > Should parse as: > > (= x (? c a b)) coorect. > I've been watching for those check-ins, and I see one now! :) > you'll be disappointed with size reduction. I only got 50% or so. speed test coming. Ter List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
