On Jan 17, 2006, at 18:01, Andrew Rodland wrote:
Doesn't that imply that "print print print print 1;" is a valid Punie
program? Is that intentional? It seems to me that the gprint rule
should instead contain "cexpr":
rule gprint { (print) \s* }
"print print print print 1;" is certainly
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 15:01, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> "print print print print 1;" is certainly a valid Perl 5 program; it
> prints a 1 followed by 3 other things (which are defined to be true, and
> which happen to also be the number 1).
Nit: print doesn't *always* return a true value. It'
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:50, Chris Dolan wrote:
> Allison et al.,
>
> I was looking at languages/punie/lib/punie.g in the current SVN head
> and got confused. I see:
>rule gprint { (print) \s* }
> and
>rule expr{ | }
>
> Doesn't that imply that "print print print print 1;" is
Allison et al.,
I was looking at languages/punie/lib/punie.g in the current SVN head
and got confused. I see:
rule gprint { (print) \s* }
and
rule expr{ | }
Doesn't that imply that "print print print print 1;" is a valid Punie
program? Is that intentional? It seems to me that
