PROPOSAL: open and close brace optional for single statement try, catch, finally, method declaration
Glenn A. Marshall
glenn.a.marshall at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 07:12:40 PDT 2009
I understand that the grammar to handle this, if it was implemented in the
obvious way (analogous to the dangling else) is hackish and thus not
preferred. I sympathize and agree with this. I agree that this increases
the effort/cost to implement this proposal, as well as make the grammar more
hackish on an ongoing basis. Part of the assessment is to consider the
cost, thus this is a relevant point.
This proposal is still in an early state, and does not have an prototype
implementation, nor a proposed grammar, both of which would reduce the cost
to implement this proposal. I understand that some implementation questions
will be resolved if the grammar component of the implementation was
available, and it was unambiguous, from a grammar perspective.
But you seem to be saying something else - that, conceptually, from a code
perspective this proposal isn't clear. Can you elaborate please? I believe
the code snippet you originally provided is handled.
Tom: you seemed to be saying that you thought this was clear, originally,
then later you also raised questions - have your questions been answered?
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Glenn A. Marshall
> <glenn.a.marshall at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed, the grammar would change. It was my hope that this proposal was
> > sufficiently detailed that the grammar changes needed would be clear,
> > conceptually. Are they?
> Not to me. Seeing the (unambiguous) grammar for your proposal would
> clear up a bunch of questions.
More information about the coin-dev