From @cpansprout

Yes, I actually tried to do pos++ recently, and quickly realised why it didn’t work.

But ‘pos++;’ could only mean one thing, so why shouldn’t perl do that?

Making this work for the unambiguous cases that are currently syntax errors is not that hard, and I can make it generic enough to work with custom lvalue subs, too.

The only drawback I can think of is that, while the first line here will work, the second will not, since it is not sufficiently unambiguous​:

  pos++;
  pos++ if $necessary;

--

Father Chrysostomos

From @cpansprout

On Tue Nov 11 14​:01​:11 2014, sprout wrote​:

Yes, I actually tried to do pos++ recently, and quickly realised why
it didn’t work.

But ‘pos++;’ could only mean one thing, so why shouldn’t perl do that?

Making this work for the unambiguous cases that are currently syntax
errors is not that hard, and I can make it generic enough to work with
custom lvalue subs, too.

The only drawback I can think of is that, while the first line here
will work, the second will not, since it is not sufficiently
unambiguous​:

pos++;
pos++ if $necessary;

In case it’s not clear, the reason pos++ fails is that the lexer is expecting an expression after ‘pos’ and treats ++ as a preincrement where an expression is expected.

This is how I would solve it​: If ++ is followed by a terminator of some sort (closing bracket, semicolon) or an unambiguous infix operator (e.g., &&), then it can’t possibly be a preincrement, but it *might* be a postincrement. So tell the parser it is a postincrement, resulting in either a syntax error (as before) or something meaningful.

--

Father Chrysostomos

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @cpansprout

On Tue Nov 11 14​:01​:11 2014, sprout wrote​:

The only drawback I can think of is that, while the first line here
will work, the second will not, since it is not sufficiently
unambiguous​:

pos++;
pos++ if $necessary;

And I think it would cause more confusion that the construct is allowed until you stick ‘if’ after it. So I am rejecting this ticket.

--

Father Chrysostomos

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

On Tue Nov 11 14​:01​:11 2014, sprout wrote​:

The only drawback I can think of is that, while the first line here
will work, the second will not, since it is not sufficiently
unambiguous​:

pos++;
pos++ if $necessary;

And I think it would cause more confusion that the construct is allowed until you stick ‘if’ after it. So I am rejecting this ticket.

--

Father Chrysostomos

@cpansprout - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected'