On 25 August 2024 22:51:45 BST, Bilge <[email protected]> wrote:
>Great! I'm glad we're finally getting to this, because I think this is what you, and
>everyone advocating for a restricted grammar, is actually missing. You think you've caught me
>in some kind of "gotcha" moment, but fair warning, I'm about to play my Uno Reverse
>card.
You could have got to it much quicker by just saying it earlier, particularly when explaining how
the current implementation is *not* the easy path.
I was not in the slightest thinking I'd caught any kind of "gotcha", I was repeating
something I'd already said multiple times, that the *behaviour* I feel is justified is having
"default" usable in the RHS of a ternary or coalesce.
I'm not an expert on parsers, and never claimed to be, so it's not particularly surprising
to me that I've overlooked a reason why "expr ?: default" can't be included
without also including "default ?: expr", and will just have to take your word for it.
It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is sensible.
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]