Rob Shearman wrote:
I've looked at the spec and I see that it has a nice lookahead not a
member of '{, function' in the rule for ExpressionStatement, meaning
that the grammar cannot be implemented unambiguously by a LALR(1)
parser-generator like bison. :-(
I've found on MS blog that my
2008/10/16 Jacek Caban [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Rob,
Rob Shearman wrote:
The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
the Statement rule.
---
dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
The
Rob Shearman wrote:
Jacek, are you OK with deviating from the specification like this?
Sure, I was thinking about something like this when I was writing the
parser, but I decided that it's better to stick with documentation then
to get something working. Now that we have tests and we may
The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
the Statement rule.
---
dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
The tests pass with this change, but I haven't looked in detail as to
whether it will
Hi Rob,
Rob Shearman wrote:
The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
the Statement rule.
---
dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
The tests pass with this change, but I haven't
