On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > On 01/31/2012 03:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> >> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: >> >>> On 01/28/2012 02:54 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: >>>> Under the open issues for Quasi Literals, >>>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:quasis#nesting , the >>>> topic of nesting is brought up. >>>> >>>> After implementing Quasi Literals in Traceur it is clear that >>>> supporting nested quasi literals is easier than not supporting them. >>>> What is the argument for not supporting nesting? Can we resolve this? >>> >>> This has been hashed out in committee before. Do you have a solution to >>> the grammar problems, such as having a full ECMAScript parser inside the >>> lexer? You can't just count parentheses because that breaks regexps. >> >> I would think the solution to this is pretty straightforward. Basically, a >> Quasi is not a single token. the grammar in the proposal can almost be >> read that way right now. It should only take a little cleanup to factor it >> into a pure lexical part and a syntactic part. > > I'd love to see this little cleanup. I thought about it for a while and > couldn't come up with it myself; I'm not sure it can even be done.
Was there some particular issue you were running into? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
