kuilpd wrote: > If it's possible, it would be nice to have one actual release where people > who used this form of range access will get an error. That will be easy to > detect in any scripts folks are currently using, and easy to fix. However, if > the first official release of this goes from treating it as a range to > treating the difference as an index, that would causes errors that will be > much harder to detect. The other way to do this is add an experimental > setting (so we can delete it later) that enables "- is always minus" (and > returns an error for the token otherwise) and ship it off. That would mean > the error detection would still happen. Since people are going to have to > find out that this is supported to use it anyway, provided we mention the > setting in the same docs, this shouldn't cause any problems. After a release, > we can delete the setting and unconditionally allow the behavior.
@jimingham I agree that people should be warned first, but there is a problem here is that once I add binary minus, the parser won't be able to distinguish between a minus as a separator compared to a minus as a part of an expression in this part: ``` postfix_expression "[" expression "]" postfix_expression "[" expression "-" expression "]" ``` So I'll have to change the `expression` here to something below the binary minus in the grammar, like a `unary_expression` or another `postfix_expression`. I can make this change in this patch along with an error upon finding '-' that suggests to use `:` instead. When I add binary minus I will also add the "- is always minus" setting, which we can remove 2 releases from now, I guess? The only downside is that the expressions available for indexing will be limited for all this time. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/173410 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
