Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.lightlink.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From: jgk@panix.com (Joe keane)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator?
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Lines: 48
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <15-02-024@comp.compilers>
References: <15-02-006@comp.compilers> <15-02-014@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1423619250 34428 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (11 Feb 2015 01:47:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:47:30 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords: parse, design
Posted-Date: 10 Feb 2015 20:47:30 EST
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1526

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>For your example involving ^ and ++, I think that one should use
>parentheses explicitly in most cases, e.g. (a^b)++^c or a^(b++)^c.
>You can leave away the parentheses if there is no ambiguity, as in
>your 2++^3, but that's not straightforward to express in BNF.

gcc does something like this

You can say:

	if (x & y == 0)

probable error, warn or reject

	if ((x & y) == 0)

OK

	if (x & (y == 0))

OK, if that's what you want

I don't know how it is implemented.

	if (x == 1 && y == 2)

fine IMHO

	if ((x == 1) && (y == 2))

too many parens

	if (((x >= 1) && (x <= 2)) || ((y >= 1) && (y <= 2)))

way too many parens IMHO, but shouldn't reject

The reason you don't want to reject these is that,
besides that it's style, they could come from macros.

If you color parens in macros, you could also look out for macros:

#define SUM(X, Y) (X)+(Y)

probable error

#define DOUBLE(X) (2*X)

probable error