[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Syntax change proposal:

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Syntax change proposal:
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:27:02 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> It's much simpler than that.  Expressions are "greedy": what can become
> a part of them, will.


> \displayMusic c4-3
> is existing syntax.  Long-existing syntax.  A total nuisance to support.
> But it is not like there is much choice involved here.  It has been
> around eternities.  Do you think all the backtracking folderol and
> mode-switching and token-juggling that is going on in the parser
> bypassing the basic LALR(1) algorithm has been implemented because I
> consider it fun?


Quick off-the-cuff estimate: ignoring all user code, what would we
lose if we forced expressions to explicitly require arguments,
  \displayMusic { c4-3 }
  \displayMusic ( c4-3 )

(ignore the symbol-clash between existing uses of {}() )

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]