On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 02:38:54AM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 28/10/2019 23:03, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
> > index 4464e2667..4b0a1566c 100644
> > --- a/parse.c
> > +++ b/parse.c
> > @@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ static struct symbol_op goto_op = {
> >
> > static struct symbol_op __context___op = {
> > .statement = parse_context_statement,
> > + .attribute = attribute_context,
>
> Hmm, so why is do we have a context_op and a __context___op?
>
> > };
> >
> > static struct symbol_op range_op = {
> > @@ -537,6 +538,7 @@ static struct init_keyword {
> > { "while", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &while_op },
> > { "do", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &do_op },
> > { "goto", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &goto_op },
> > + { "context", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &context_op },
> > { "__context__",NS_KEYWORD, .op = &__context___op },
>
> So, can '__context__' be used in a statement, as well as an
> attribute, while 'context' can only be used in an attribute?
Yes, indeed.
'__context__' was only parsed as a statement and 'context'
only as an attribute. But now we also want to be able to use
'__context__' as an attribute (because 'context' is not a
reserved keyword and can thus be a used defined macro).
There is no reason, though, we should now also want to use
'context' as a statement since it's a sparse extension. Hence
adding attribute_context to '__context___op' and keeping
'context_op' as such (but moving them together).
-- Luc
