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

[Chet Ramey]

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/