Hi! Thanks for the library.
..abc is identical to .. This is because when the first . is encountered, the parser assumes that it's looking at a form like .abc / ."abc" / .[0], or a standalone .. Since the second token in ..abc doesn't fall into the category of .abc / ."abc" / .[0], it concludes that this is a standalone ., and exit immediately.
Arguably, the correct parsing should be a field access on . (current context), which is equivalent to .abc.
But IIUC, there's also a proposal to make .. an actual operator.
Would it make sense to make .. an error, reserving this syntax for the future?
Hi! Thanks for the library.
..abcis identical to.. This is because when the first.is encountered, the parser assumes that it's looking at a form like.abc/."abc"/.[0], or a standalone.. Since the second token in..abcdoesn't fall into the category of.abc/."abc"/.[0], it concludes that this is a standalone., and exit immediately.Arguably, the correct parsing should be a field access on
.(current context), which is equivalent to.abc.But IIUC, there's also a proposal to make
..an actual operator.Would it make sense to make
..an error, reserving this syntax for the future?