On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
I just threw "@/" out there as something that was parseable. @ is a totally
general binary operator, the second argument doesn't have to be a constant
(not even for tracing). So any extensions to it need to be something that
is not ambiguous with anything else. "@@" for the common case seemed
logical. Allowing both "@@" and "@@<expr>" could get us into dangling-else
style ambiguity; given that this is our arbitrary extension, why create
parsing ambiguity if there is no language syntax forcing us to?
I don't quite follow.
You're going from @ being a binary operator and extending it, to
concerns of @@ vs @@<expr>.
Guessing, you're not really extending @ except visually.