Re: [heycam/webidl] add a type to represent the undefined value (#60)

> Do you think we could just write `foo()` and leave out the type entirely in those cases?

That would probably make the grammar no longer LL(1), since the parser would have to look ahead two tokens to find the `(`, which tells it that `foo` is the operation name rather than the type.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/60#issuecomment-668632234