This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:41:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
- References: <20080108065524.GA24614@adacore.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Not knowing what was really meant at the implementation level, I'm not
> > sure whether this is a parser implementation bug, or an error in the
> > documentation. Paul thought that this was an error in the documentation
> > so, assuming he is correct, I'm submitting this change on his behalf.
> > So, is this a parser bug or a documentation error?
> The original text was there since the first version in CVS (in 1999),
> so I'm inclined to think it's a bug in the parser.
>From what I know about parsing C, I suggest we go with the
documentation change. && is a single token, and && NAME is not
currently valid. It would introduce some ambiguities into the
grammer, I suspect.