From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2009-10-06T22:54:47+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:25972] Re: [Feature #2131] f(not x) => syntax error

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:25968] [Feature #2131] f(not x) => syntax error"
    on Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:13:29 +0900, "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@ruby-lang.org> writes:

|The portion you clipped from my previous post shows that I understood
|("...different meanings inside the parens...").  Again, the change in
|meaning does not affect my point.

<snip>

I am not sure I understand your statement.  They are different.  How
that big difference does not affect your point?

Anyway, I have just tried to add a new syntax rule to make f(not x)
work as you've requested.  The naive addition cause 54 shift/reduce
conflicts.  That means either I misunderstand your statement, or your
statement was ambiguous, or your sought syntax cannot be done by yacc
parser (so that we have to move to new parser, that moving must be
huge task and cause lot of potential incompatibility).

If someone come up with concrete syntax rules, I'd re-consider.

							matz.