[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: $(( )): binary/unary VAR/NUM inconsistency

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: $(( )): binary/unary VAR/NUM inconsistency
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:59:00 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0

On 7/8/22 5:05 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
     Date:        Fri, 8 Jul 2022 12:08:38 -0400
     From:        Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
     Message-ID:  <e238f3f9-6aa9-627b-93c3-a5bb673ea650@case.edu>

   | This is where folks like kre are going to argue.

Am I?   I was keeping out of this one!

It was a different thread discussing the same subject where I saw your
comment about stricter token parsing.

About the only other thing I'd say (more than 30 years too late) is that
even when the ++ and -- operators weren't implemented, the tokenizer
really should always have recognised them

So they would always have been an error? What's the benefit of that? If
you're not going to implement pre/post inc/dec, why should ++10 be an
error instead of two unary plus operators?

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]