Rob Shearman wrote:
>
> I've looked at the spec and I see that it has a nice "lookahead not a
> member of '{, function'" in the rule for ExpressionStatement, meaning
> that the grammar cannot be implemented unambiguously by a LALR(1)
> parser-generator like bison. :-(
>
>
I've found on MS blog
Rob Shearman wrote:
> Jacek, are you OK with deviating from the specification like this?
>
Sure, I was thinking about something like this when I was writing the
parser, but I decided that it's better to stick with documentation then
to get something working. Now that we have tests and we may
2008/10/16 Jacek Caban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Rob Shearman wrote:
>>
>> The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
>> the Statement rule.
>> ---
>> dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 dele
Hi Rob,
Rob Shearman wrote:
> The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
> the Statement rule.
> ---
> dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> The tests pass with this change, but I haven
The rule is implemented by FunctionExpression which is reduced using
the Statement rule.
---
dlls/jscript/parser.y | 37 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
The tests pass with this change, but I haven't looked in detail as to
whether it will
