From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by ewsd; Sun Aug  2 00:51:46 EDT 2020
Received: from abbatoir.fios-router.home (pool-74-101-2-6.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [74.101.2.6])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 019442ad (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Sat, 1 Aug 2020 21:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ADD0D28E5495374CF0053F697B0C9582@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] Patch to fix test(1) expression parsing
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:51:35 -0700
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <8155F03D042A477BCB2881C5C2FD20E1@musolino.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: extended property event-based framework 

>> This comment seems outdated -- we can use the nice idea and
>> error out appropriately now.
> 
> Yeah, I did this in an updated patch I sent in a subsequent email.

Oops. Had the old email open.

looking at it again, I'm wondering if we can split the unary and
binary ops up, and then instead of adding

	if(EQ(a, '-?')) {
		b = nxtarg(0);
		return(eval && ...);
	}

we could do:

	/* special case ops */
	if(EQ(a, "special))
		...

	/* common case binary ops */
	b = nxtarg(0);
	if(!eval)
		return 0;
	if(EQ(a, "-?")
		return(...)
	if(eq(a, "-!")
		return(...)

It looks like there'd only be a few special cases that
don't fit.