Re: Ternary operator patch
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Ternary operator patch
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: 2010年9月15日 11:35:27 +0200
Fabien <fleutot+lua@gmail.com> writes:
> Lua's grammar is designed in such a way that the end of an expression
> can almost always(*) be determined without an explicit termination
> keyword.
>
> (*) the only exception I can think of, and which doesn't feel right
> IMO, is the fact that "foo(bar)(gnu)(gnat)" is understood differently
> from "foo(bar)\n(gnu)(gnat)".
Huh? What makes you think that? Aren't you confusing "\n" with ";"?
--
David Kastrup
- References:
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Henk Boom
- Re: Ternary operator patch, steve donovan
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Geoff Leyland
- Re: Ternary operator patch, steve donovan
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Miles Bader
- Re: Ternary operator patch, David Kastrup
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Miles Bader
- Re: Ternary operator patch, David Kastrup
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Jonathan Castello
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Roberto Ierusalimschy
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Enrico Tassi
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Doug Rogers
- Re: Ternary operator patch, Fabien