Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is not the case. It is in fact valid:
running:
==========
.sub main
newclass $P0, "foo"
$P1 = new "foo"
$P1 .hi() # note the space before the dot
$P1. hi() # note the space after the dot
.end
.namespace ["foo"]
.sub hi :method
print "hi\n"
.end
==========
prints "hi\n" twice on my system and always has since I've worked on pir..
Ah, my code example had some other syntax error, which it was reporting as:
error:imcc:syntax error, unexpected DOT, expecting '(' ('.')
in file 'method_call_whitespace.pir' line 5
Yes, those spaces do work.
And they shouldn't work.
(this is because, in imcc's lexer a '.' is always returned as DOT (for
object/method separation) and a '.' is only returned as a concatenation
operator iff it is surrounded by whitespace on both sides; the actual
reg.expr for this in imcc.l is {WS}'.'{WS} )
Which explains why it was interpreting 'foo . "bar"()' as CONCAT, even
though a concatenation operation makes absolutely no sense in that context.
In all, I don't want to make too big an issue out of this, just trying
to clean up the peculiarities and have them documented :-)
Agreed, I've spent about all the time on it I'm willing to spend.
The valid syntaxes containing '.' are:
<var>.<method>(<args>) # method call
<var> = <var/val> . <var/val> # concatenation
<var> .= <var/val> # concatenation
Anything we can do to tighten the implementation and allow *only* those
three is progress. But, it may just wait until the next PIR implementation.
Allison
