Re: [Iverilog-devel] Syntax question, is !&x valid?

[Martin W. <ic...@ma...>]

On 30/03/2023 10:37, Niels Möller wrote:
> Martin Whitaker <ic...@ma...> writes:
> 
>> IEEE 1364-2005 appendix A says
>>
>> expression ::=
>>      primary
>>    | unary_operator { attribute_instance } primary
>>    | expression binary_operator { attribute_instance } expression
>>    | conditional_expression
>>
>> primary ::=
>    [...]
> 
> Thanks for explaining. I would have expected the grammar to include a
> production like
> 
>   | unary_operator expression
> 
> but I guess there's some reason (historical or technical) why that's not
> in the specified grammar.

Possibly it's just due to the existence of the ~&, ~|, and ~^ operators.