For each construct

I pondered this discussion the other day and had some more thoughts.
> > How about a 'foreach' construct? So one could write
> >
> > sum(foreach //item return quantity * USPrice)
> >
> > Shouldn't that avoid any parsingproblems?
> >
> Unfortunately not. It requires either lookahead or reserved words: you
can't
> tell until you hit the "return" that foreach//item isn't a relative path
> expression.

shouldn't this work:

for each //item return quantity * USPrice

I am admittedly not very well versed in lexers/parsers, but it seems like if
a lexer is able to tokenize "cast as" without lookahead, then it should be
able to interpret "for each" as well?

/ Jonas Sicking

Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 08:00:56 UTC