Re: [RFC] Default expression

On 25 August 2024 22:51:45 BST, Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com> wrote: >Great! I'm glad we're finally getting to this, because I think this is what you, and >everyone advocating for a restricted grammar, is actually missing. You think you've caught me >in some kind of "gotcha" moment, but fair warning, I'm about to play my Uno Reverse >card. You could have got to it much quicker by just saying it earlier, particularly when explaining how the current implementation is *not* the easy path. I was not in the slightest thinking I'd caught any kind of "gotcha", I was repeating something I'd already said multiple times, that the *behaviour* I feel is justified is having "default" usable in the RHS of a ternary or coalesce. I'm not an expert on parsers, and never claimed to be, so it's not particularly surprising to me that I've overlooked a reason why "expr ?: default" can't be included without also including "default ?: expr", and will just have to take your word for it. It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is sensible. Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]