This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 3, 2023. It is now read-only.
Fix ambiguity in conjunctions and tuple literals. #9
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change removes the possibility of using tuple literals in the first part of the conjuction conditional. This removes the ambiguity in the syntax. For example, consider this valid conditional: "Applejack has more than one and Pinkie Pie has more than one" Without this change, "one and Pinkie Pie" will be parsed as a tuple literal, which then causes the parser to fail on the "has" keyword.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change removes the possibility of using tuple literals in the beginning of a conjuction conditional. This fixes issue #8.
For example, consider this valid conditional:
Without this change,
one and Pinkie Piewill be parsed as a tuple literal, which then causes the parser to fail on thehaskeyword. The syntax itself doesn't seem ambiguous in this particular case. However, the parser only fails at theandCondition, so it won't try to reparseoneas asimpleExpressioninstead of alistExpression.It might be possible to fix the parser to correctly parse this while retaining the possibility of having tuple literals. Removing literals seems simpler though.