Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2009
2009/7/20 Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgarciasuarez@gmail.com>: > 2009/7/20 Vincent Pit <perl@profvince.com>: >> >>> This is extremely neat. >>> However by looking at the perly.y part of the patch (I haven't looked >>> at the other ones yet) I see that you add switch as a derivation for >>> the term rule, but switch can begin with a label. And terms don't. >>> >>> I'd rather have a new rule >>> switch : label given; >>> and add given to term. >>> >> >> The problem in this approach is that it makes bison complain about some >> reduce/reduce conflicts. I'm unsure if those are genuine or not. > > I think they are. > Without looking at the code: I think bison doesn't know whether he > should reduce as a given-expression, or as a given-statement. And > without infinite lookahead that's not going to work. > If we remove given-statement, that will mandate a semicolon at the end > of a given block, as for any expression. That's not nice either. > Basically that construct is too ambiguous now... Another idea. Split "given" into two tokens, and make the tokenizer return one or the other depending on the value of PL_expect. Probably XSTATE versus XTERM. Details will have to be worked out. Not sure if it will work.Thread Previous | Thread Next