Grammar ambiguitiesThe productions for simple-name (§7.6.2) and member-access (§7.6.4) can give rise to ambiguities in the grammar for expressions. For example, the statement: F(G<A,B>(7)); could be interpreted as a call to F with two arguments, G < A and B > (7). Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a call to F with one argument, which is a call to a generic method G with two type arguments and one regular argument. If a sequence of tokens can be parsed (in context) as a simple-name (§7.6.2), member-access (§7.6.4), or pointer-member-access (§18.5.2) ending with a type-argument-list (§4.4.1), the token immediately following the closing > token is examined. If it is one of () ] }:;,.? ==!= | ^ then the type-argument-list is retained as part of the simple-name, member-access or pointer-member-access and any other possible parse of the sequence of tokens is discarded. Otherwise, the type-argument-list is not considered to be part of the simple-name, member-access or pointer-member-access, even if there is no other possible parse of the sequence of tokens. Note that these rules are not applied when parsing a type-argument-list in a namespace-or-type-name (§3.8). The statement F(G<A,B>(7)); will, according to this rule, be interpreted as a call to F with one argument, which is a call to a generic method G with two type arguments and one regular argument. The statements F(G < A, B > 7); will each be interpreted as a call to F with two arguments. The statement x = F < A > +y; will be interpreted as a less than operator, greater than operator, and unary plus operator, as if the statement had been written x = (F < A) > (+y), instead of as a simple-name with a type-argument-list followed by a binary plus operator. In the statement x = y is C<T> + z; the tokens C<T> are interpreted as a namespace-or-type-name with a type-argument-list.
|
