Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ben Bacarisse Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: x === x Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:45:32 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: <87shjjvn2b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> References: <874lw231ui.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2872662.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> <87inkh28sf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <19437984.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> <87efv4zr3k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2276977.Lt9SDvczpP@PointedEars.de> <87k24wy1pw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b8cfcc8b3b6248419b3e2a0831823cf6"; logging-data="29728"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aCeZFpAp74mzDeliaFT7bQ7dHE4GX834=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:ndHIazlbXjfZSNYal1WF/op53vA= sha1:WTNkxM3PMitUA3AqrbpnHbnrI50= X-BSB-Auth: 1.2035cbf4e28f295cb860.20170601144532BST.87shjjvn2b.fsf@bsb.me.uk Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:33473 Julio Di Egidio writes: > On Thursday, 1 June 2017 02:46:08 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> I am reasonably sure that ECMAScript syntax is not ambiguous (at least >> on this matter). > > You just don't know shit, certainly on this matter. On this matter specifically (the interpretation of { at the start of an ExpressionStatement), the syntax appears to be very clear and unambiguous. Can you give an example of a Script (or Module) where the syntax permits more than one valid parse? That would clarify what you consider to be "the syntax". Presumably you are discounting, as syntax, one or more of the rules that I consider to part of it. Alternatively you could be rude again, and I'll know not to try to understand your position. -- Ben.