On 11/16/2016 02:34 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
On 11/16/2016 11:19 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 11/16/2016 02:08 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
On 11/16/2016 10:02 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
- If you lex 'package', then the sequence must parse as the first
alternative.
- If you don't lex 'package', but rather lex 'import', then parsing
is ambiguous until you've looked ahead to lex either 'open',
'module', or a keyword that can start TypeDeclaration. [Ignoring
annotations for simplicity.]
- If you lexed 'open' or module', then the sequence must parse as
the second alternative; if you lexed anything else, then the
sequence must parse as the first alternative.
I just tried this:
---8<---
import open.module;
module foo {
}
---8<---
According to lang-vm this should be legal. The import statement
contains restricted keywords in positions where they cannot be
keywords.
=> Parsing should succeed.
javac rejects this, which supports your explanation that lexical
lookahead
should suffice to recognize a ModuleDeclaration.
Which one will it be?
Stephan
I suspect you're not using the latest javac.
9-ea-142 gives a syntax error:
module-info.java:3: error: class, interface, or enum expected
I'm downloading 9-ea-144 as we speak.
9-ea-144 probably won't be good enough. You will need a build of the
jigsaw/jake forest,
coming soon.
Your example works for me, after I also create a class called
open.module that I can
import.
Thanks, so restricted keywords now follow the same rules throughout
the file.
Sounds good.
And with your explanation (previous post) I'm confident that javac's
implementation
and what I had in mind are congruent.
Still curious how a spec will faithfully capture this :)
:-)
Stephan
