On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:29:17AM -0700, Patrick Walton wrote:
> If we did this, we wouldn't know whether to parse a pattern or an
> expression when starting a statement. This isn't fixable without
> trying to define some sort of cover grammar that covers both
> expressions and patterns, like ECMAScript 6 does. I don't know if
> this would work in Rust.
I've been wondering about this. To accommodate a use case like
(a, b) = ...
we don't actually need to have a grammar that covers *all* expressions
and patterns, but rather just a grammar for *lvalues and irrefutable
patterns*. I feel like this is do-able, but I confess I haven't
thought too hard about it.
Anyway, seems like a nice-to-have, but not a high priority.
Niko
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
