Nicholas Clark wrote in perl.perl6.language :
>> Actually I don't think you can define a grammar where two operators have
>> the same precedence but different associativity. Be it a pure BNF
>> grammar, or a classical yacc specification (using the %left and %right
>> declarations).
>
> But that would mean only perl6 could pass perl6, which isn't much different
> from the perl5 situation, is it?
I meant that if <~ and ~> are going to have the same precedence, you
can't parse
s ~> t <~ u
It's not a well formed phrase of the language (even though this language
can't described by a nonambiguous BNF grammar.)
In fact, this is different from the Perl 5 situation you're alluding to.
