Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29510 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51384 invoked by uid 1010); 18 May 2007 12:27:08 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51369 invoked from network); 18 May 2007 12:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 May 2007 12:27:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 207.126.228.149 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.126.228.149 rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [207.126.228.149] ([207.126.228.149:32926] helo=rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6F/20-48082-A9B9D464 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:27:08 -0400 Received: from n219076092238.netvigator.com (socks2.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.54.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4ICQtil005612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2007 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <464D9B86.90404@lerdorf.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:26:46 +0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: "'PHP Internals'" References: <464D07F4.4040509@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <464D07F4.4040509@zend.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 1/-2*5 (bug 41401) From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Looks like we have a precedence bug in the parser rules there. > Fortunately it's quite easy to fix, for example writing the rules as: > > | '+' expr %prec T_INC > | '-' expr %prec T_INC > > seems to work. Any reason not to? I think this should go in. It is an obvious mistake in the parser as far as I am concerned. -Rasmus