🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Long (plong@perf.com) wrote:
: Whoops, I remembered wrong! It's not simply that there is a conflict
: (specifically, a shift/reduce conflict), the problem is that, as
: Charles Fu indicated in another article, the grammar is ambiguous
: and no amount of lookahead will help. Expanding on what Charles
: wrote, this looks like a labeled do with an empty statement, right?
: 
:     do outer
:         ;
:     while (0);
: 
: Okay, but in the following form, it also looks like an unlabeled do
: with a statement that contains a single identifier.
: 
:     do
:         outer;
:     while (0);
: 
Yes I mistakenly suggested this form in a post a few moments ago.
This is the only unambiguous form:

	do
		;
	while outer (0);

Andrew Dunbar
GPSoftware