Jussi Kalliokoski wrote:
Is the star after yield any less arbitrary?
Not much -- it conjures Kleene's star, worth something (not much? enough!).
Your comments on the grammar show continued informality and lack
of familiarity with parsing theory in general, and the ECMA-262
grammar formalisms in particular.
They probably do since I am not familiar with parsing theory in
general, but I probably represent a large portion of the community
with that disability (which I hope to repair at some point). I
wouldn't ask the questions if I knew the answers, now would I. To me
this seems just like arbitrary limitations where it's somehow
impossible to add an if statement in the parser.
We don't want to mess around with ambiguity. The smell of a suffix
character for function is strictly less than the smell of a sub-grammar
for 'generator' distinct from other identifiers, with newline sensitivity.
We don't want to split 'generator' out from Identifier, and
special-case its syntax in PrimaryExpressions (which must be
covered by a cover-grammar that also covers destructuring). We
don't have a convenient formalism for such special-casing.
All right, so it would be a much larger effort to specify it?
The work involves splitting Identifier :: IdentifierName but not
ReservedWord into 'generator' | IdentifierNotGenerator and adding
IdentifierNotGenerator :: IdentifierName but not ('generator' or
ReservedWord), then splitting Identifier uses and coping with the cover
grammar complexity. I haven't done the work to make sure it's sound.
Much bigger fish to fry, rotten smell already.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
