On Feb 1, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > On 02/01/2012 11:35 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: >> >>> On 01/31/2012 03:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01/28/2012 02:54 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: >>>>>> Under the open issues for Quasi Literals, >>>>>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:quasis#nesting , the >>>>>> topic of nesting is brought up. >>>>>> >>>>>> After implementing Quasi Literals in Traceur it is clear that >>>>>> supporting nested quasi literals is easier than not supporting them. >>>>>> What is the argument for not supporting nesting? Can we resolve this? >>>>> >>>>> This has been hashed out in committee before. Do you have a solution to >>>>> the grammar problems, such as having a full ECMAScript parser inside the >>>>> lexer? You can't just count parentheses because that breaks regexps. >>>> >>>> I would think the solution to this is pretty straightforward. Basically, >>>> a Quasi is not a single token. the grammar in the proposal can almost be >>>> read that way right now. It should only take a little cleanup to factor >>>> it into a pure lexical part and a syntactic part. >>> >>> I'd love to see this little cleanup. I thought about it for a while and >>> couldn't come up with it myself; I'm not sure it can even be done. >> >> Was there some particular issue you were running into? > > Here's one which I couldn't express in a lexer grammar: How to restart the > quasi after an included expression is over.
I wouldn't because I would produce the complete quasi as a single token. I would leave it up to the syntactic grammar to assemble the quasi pieces and inclusion expression into a complete unit. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
