Nested Quasis

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Wed Feb 8 13:53:12 PST 2012


I believe we have all figured out what to do about them and agree on the
same answer. We're only struggling to find a way to state the answer.

If you understand what we're trying to say, please suggest a way to say it
you would find acceptable. If you don't understand, can we proceed by
example until you understand our intent, so that we can then proceed to
discuss how to say it?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com> wrote:

> On 02/07/2012 04:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> I like Erik's way, but it makes a strange loop from lexical to syntactic
>> grammar. It all works, I believe.
>>
>> The loop is here:
>>
>> QuasiHole ::
>> Identifier
>> { Spacing* Expression Spacing* }
>>
>>
>> Expression is a syntactic grammar non-terminal, yet here we are in a
>> lexical production.
>>
>> Waldemar, is this sound?
>>
>
> QuasiHole is a syntactic production, not a lexical one.  See Mark's
> grammar in his 02/02/2012 11:03 AM message.
>
> I believe that it works, except for the treatment of comments and
> whitespace along the boundary of a QuasiHole.  I recently gave some
> examples of the mischief those can create unless we can figure out what to
> do about them.
>
>    Waldemar
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120208/40a2d500/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list