Re: [VOTE] throw expression

Hi Nikita > The only thing wrong here is calling this an "exception to the rule" in the RFC. This > is completely standard and expected behavior given the specified precedence. It is in the nature of > precedence that there will always be cases where the use of () is required, and this is one of them. I can see how that statement could be confusing. What I meant was this: > This isn't a problem because generally throw should be the last operator .... > ... > One exception to this rule ... As in, this is the only example I could think of where throw would be used between two other expressions. Not that the precedence behaves differently than in any other case. I'll rephrase that sentence. Regards, Ilija