Thanks Jim, thats some very helpful information.
Sounds like we should take a closer look at our setup to see why the
existing precedence is having trouble resolving this for us.
Aidan
On 29/06/16 18:24, Jim Ingham wrote:
We have a not-yet-implemented scheme to allow some syntax like:
(lldb)
We have a not-yet-implemented scheme to allow some syntax like:
(lldb) expr $$foo.c$bar(5)
that would mean: look up the version of bar defined in foo.c and call that.
What I wrote above isn't right, since the "." is going to cause the parser
headaches, so we'll have to come up with some clever
