[bitc-dev] Opinions wanted: Infix shift operators
wren ng thornton
wren at freegeek.org
Sat Aug 7 18:51:23 PDT 2010
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Ben Karel <eschew at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Remove '\n' from the set of ignorable-whitespace tokens...
> Personally, I think that's worse than making ';' mandatory or adopting the
> Haskell Layout rules. The essential point, I think, is that we're
> introducing an end-of-statement notion and debating how visually intrusive
> it should be. Something along these lines might be the right thing to do.
> In fact, in the interests of honesty I should admit that if I had understood
> the Layout rules earlier, I might have adopted Haskell syntax from the
> beginning. Without them, the language is horribly ambiguous to parse, and
> not knowing what to look for at the time I failed to delve into the
> specification deeply enough.
To what extent is it desirable/necessary that the grammar allows
expressions as statements?
If we had a syntax for marking expressions that should stand alone as
statements (instead of allowing expressions to be statements by a unary
rule in the grammar), then you could remove the ambiguity by looking for
the extra syntax.
More information about the bitc-dev