Brendan Eich wrote: > Brendan Eich wrote: > > Caitlin Potter wrote: > >> 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Brendan Eich<brendan at mozilla.org > >> <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>> wrote: > >> > > >> >>/ Did you keep backward compatibility? `x?.1:y` must continue to > >> work. > >> /> > >> > > >> >This is why I suggested a leading operator (`?a.?b()`) because it > >> seems > >> >like it would have the least potential for conflict with existing > >> >valid syntax > >> > >> What about something like > >> MemberExpression[?Yield] ?|.| IdentifierName > >> MemberExpression[?Yield] ?*[* Expression[In, ?Yield] |]| > >> Context specific to MemberExpressions, as far as I'm aware there's no > >> otherwise valid ternary expression that could be mixed up for it, and > >> it wouldn't need a cover grammar? > >> > > > > We can try being this precise, as you say -- but we cannot then handle > > x?(y) as CoffeeScript does. Instead of being neither fish nor fowl, > > better to be fowl with leading ?, or use a distinct and regular syntax > > that handles all the cases we want. My two cents, > > The reduce/reduce conflict recognizing a left sentential form '[' E ']' > vs. M '?' '[' E ']' shows the fatal ambiguity. > > /be
There is also ambiguity due to ASI vs. a ConditionalExpression: ``` obj ? [ expr ] :label ``` Ron _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
