|
From: | Linda Walsh |
Subject: | Re: function grammar |
Date: | Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:06:41 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
Ken Irving wrote:
So maybe the declaration could be fixed to show that, e.g., as either of: name () compound-command [redirection] function name [()] compound-command [redirection] I can't see how to put that in one construct...
BNF would use: < 'function' <NAME> > | < <NAME> '()' > <compound-command> [redirection] (ignoring that it would probably also specify <SPACE> where needed maybe using bash syntax: +(function _name_ | _name_ () ) compound-command [redirection]
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |