I believe that x - - y would give you an error.

4 - - 5 in parsing is a different beast, because you consider - 5 as a
single token.

Thierry

2014-11-10 12:36 GMT+01:00 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no>:

> In VisualWorks:
> 3 @ *Argument expected ->*- 5
>
> I guess what one expects is a matter of habit, personally I'd expect x - -
> y to yield a parsing error.
>
> Cheers,
> Henry
>
> On 10 Nov 2014, at 12:06 , PBKResearch <pe...@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have tried this on my latest Dolphin (Pro 6.1 Beta 2):
> 3 @ -5 is accepted and interpreted correctly.
> 3 @ - 5 is rejected with message: 'Error - incorrect expression start';
> the caret is pointing at the - sign.
> So the Opal behaviour does not mirror that of Dolphin.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Peter Kenny
>
>
> *From:* Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-boun...@lists.pharo.org
> <pharo-users-boun...@lists.pharo.org>] *On Behalf Of *Thierry Goubier
>
> 2014-11-10 8:47 GMT+01:00 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no>:
>
> 3 @ -5 is not a problem, and accepted by both.
> 3 @ - <space> 5 is what I object to (and Opal allows)
>
>
>
> RBParser allows this one even if old Compiler dissallows it (i.e. in Pharo
> 2).
>
> I haven't tracked if Opal follows the RBParser on that or if this is the
> reverse (Opal pushed changes on RBParser). I suspect all things RB in Pharo
> (and Squeak?) are a port from the Dolphin version of RB, which means this
> is allowed in quite a few other smalltalks (Dolphin?, VW?).
>
> I haven't checked if the SmaCC Smalltalk parser accept that.
> Note: 4 - 5 in RBParser does what you would expect. 4 - - 5 as well.
>
>
> 3 @-5 and/or 3 @- 5 is (rightly) disallowed by both.
>
>
>
> That one is easier and expected.
> My position would be twofold:
> - RBParser is, IMHO, a good parser and I would follow its interpretation.
> That Opal reuses it is a good point for me.
> - As a programming language designer (and parser implementor), accepting -
> 5 is user friendly, but a bit too contextual in the lexer to be nice to
> implement.
>
> Thierry
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Henry
>
>
>

Reply via email to