From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15586 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 20:41:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15578 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 20:41:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:41:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC5298216; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:41:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D9098022; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:41:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCLGM-0002CJ-W2; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:41:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"? Message-ID: <20080108204130.GA8365@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080108065524.GA24614@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Not knowing what was really meant at the implementation level, I'm not > > sure whether this is a parser implementation bug, or an error in the > > documentation. Paul thought that this was an error in the documentation > > so, assuming he is correct, I'm submitting this change on his behalf. > > > > So, is this a parser bug or a documentation error? > > The original text was there since the first version in CVS (in 1999), > so I'm inclined to think it's a bug in the parser. >From what I know about parsing C, I suggest we go with the documentation change. && is a single token, and && NAME is not currently valid. It would introduce some ambiguities into the grammer, I suspect. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery