How & is parsed has nothing to do with whether we use a parser generator or not. The only relevance is that having a formal grammar would make it easier to know that & is special in this respect. But better documentation would serve that purpose better than a formal grammar.
> On Aug 21, 2014, at 1:05 PM, gentlebeldin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Whatever, if I rtfm, especially the part saying "Operators Are Functions" > (with the only exceptions of && and ||, because of short-circuit evaluation), > then I conclude that the error message following &(x,y) is not a feature, > it's a bug. And whether we like a generated parser or not, it's better than a > buggy one, imho. Sure grammar can be ambiguous, but there are techniques to > get around that, like here: http://accent.compilertools.net/Accent.html
