On 6/27/18 10:33 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2018, at 14:57, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/18 6:59 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
>>
>>> +function_newline_list: '(' ')' | function_newline_list '\n'
>>> + ;
>>> +
>>
>> This would appear to allow constructs like
>>
>> foo()
>> ()
When I initially read this thread, I was concerned about the idea of
adding yet another mutation of the redirect syntax.
Like how far does this go? Would we introduce a "" someday for
some other bit of functionality?
Ideally, I think it would be better if this could be done with pipe
syntax
On 27 Jun 2018, at 14:57, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 6/27/18 6:59 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
>
>> +function_newline_list: '(' ')' | function_newline_list '\n'
>> + ;
>> +
>
> This would appear to allow constructs like
>
> foo()
> () ()
> {
> function body
> }
only by the look of thi
On 6/27/18 6:59 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
> +function_newline_list: '(' ')' | function_newline_list '\n'
> + ;
> +
This would appear to allow constructs like
foo()
() ()
{
function body
}
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars lon
Hey,
I case anyone noticed, in the current devel there is shift/reduce conflict
reported by bison. Those usually are a symptom of not fully controlled grammar,
and I would like to think that we are in full control over parse.y.
It is caused by function_def rule, namely the combination of '(' a
