Matz has said that
a = (4
+5)
will be supported in 1.9.
···
--
Jim Freeze
Matz has said that
a = (4
+5)
will be supported in 1.9.
--
Jim Freeze
Quoting Jim Freeze <jim@freeze.org>:
Matz has said that
a = (4
+5)
Hmm. What about
a = ( 4 ; + 5 )
?
I won't be heartbroken if it isn't, but I'm just wondering about the
implications for the grammar...
-mental
<mental@rydia.net> wrote in message
news:1141059171.44032e636f879@www.rydia.net...
Hmm. What about
a = ( 4 ; + 5 )
It should be a syntax error.
Why? The semantics seem perfectly clear.
On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
<mental@rydia.net> wrote in message
news:1141059171.44032e636f879@www.rydia.net...Hmm. What about
a = ( 4 ; + 5 )It should be a syntax error.
Quoting Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com>:
>Hmm. What about
> a = ( 4 ; + 5 )It should be a syntax error.
Ruby has an unary +...
-mental
Mark Wilden wrote:
<mental@rydia.net> wrote in message news:1141059171.44032e636f879@www.rydia.net...
Hmm. What about
a = ( 4 ; + 5 )It should be a syntax error.
Why/how?
Hal