On 02/01/2012 11:35 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
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?
Here's one which I couldn't express in a lexer grammar: How to restart the
quasi after an included expression is over.
Waldemar
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
