Re: grammar triviality with '&&'

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2015-03-05 20:59:51 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mar 4,  9:12am, Ray Andrews wrote:
> }
> } If an extra degree of freedom and capability was possible, and IF it
> } could be implemented with no gotchas, then why not?
> 
> Because we don't need the grammar to become any more ad-hoc than it
> already has?

I don't think that the grammar would become more complex.
For instance, in the POSIX grammar, I suppose that it suffices
to change

and_or           :                         pipeline
                 | and_or AND_IF linebreak pipeline
                 | and_or OR_IF  linebreak pipeline
                 ;

to

and_or           :                         pipeline
                 |        AND_IF linebreak pipeline
                 |        OR_IF  linebreak pipeline
                 | and_or AND_IF linebreak pipeline
                 | and_or OR_IF  linebreak pipeline
                 ;

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)