If anyone cares, here's VisualWorks' treatment,
Compiler evaluate: '#++'.
#++
Compiler evaluate: '##'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->#
Compiler evaluate: '#'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->
Compiler evaluate: '# "please" # "print" # "me"'.
# "please" word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected -># "print" # "me"
Compiler evaluate: '##()'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->#()
Compiler evaluate: '##)'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->#)
Compiler evaluate: '##('.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->#(
Compiler evaluate: '##(##)'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->#(##)
Compiler evaluate: '#1'.
#word, binary, keyword, (, or [ expected ->1
Compiler evaluate: '#-1'.
#-Nothing more expected ->1
Compiler evaluate: '#--1'.
Unhandled exception: Message not understood: #-
Cheers!
-Boris
--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4
boris@deepcovelabs.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.
Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of nicolas cellier
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:48 PM
> To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Fun with Symbol
>
> Hello list,
>
> Today's quizz: guess the results of these evaluations and how it
prints
>
> Easy to begin with:
> Compiler evaluate: '#++'.
> Yes Scanner class>>#isLiteralSymbol: not really consistent with what
the
> parser is ready to understand. It even has some unreachable code in
it.
>
> Now what if:
> Compiler evaluate: '##'.
> Enjoy the variations, not all correct:
> Compiler evaluate: '#'.
> Compiler evaluate: '# "please" # "print" # "me"'.
> Compiler evaluate: '##()'.
> Compiler evaluate: '##)'.
> Compiler evaluate: '##('.
> Compiler evaluate: '##(##)'.
> Never heard about explicit number literal?
> Compiler evaluate: '#1'.
> Maybe the negative ones would work?
> Compiler evaluate: '#-1'.
> So try and explain this one:
> Compiler evaluate: '#--1'.
>
> Hmm, better correcting the parser than trying to write its EBNF rules!
>
> Nicolas
>
