allen at wirfs-brock.com
Wed Feb 1 11:35:24 PST 2012
On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 03:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2012 02:54 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>>>> Under the open issues for Quasi Literals,
>>>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:quasis#nesting , the
>>>> topic of nesting is brought up.
>>>> After implementing Quasi Literals in Traceur it is clear that
>>>> supporting nested quasi literals is easier than not supporting them.
>>>> What is the argument for not supporting nesting? Can we resolve this?
>>> This has been hashed out in committee before. Do you have a solution to the grammar problems, such as having a full ECMAScript parser inside the lexer? You can't just count parentheses because that breaks regexps.
>> I would think the solution to this is pretty straightforward. Basically, a Quasi is not a single token. the grammar in the proposal can almost be read that way right now. It should only take a little cleanup to factor it into a pure lexical part and a syntactic part.
> I'd love to see this little cleanup. I thought about it for a while and couldn't come up with it myself; I'm not sure it can even be done.
Was there some particular issue you were running into?
More information about the es-discuss