[nem-en] [doc] grammar: {expr}

[Dmitry Ivankov]

"Reference manual" says that {expr} is expr too.
But it's not: {f}(x) differs from f(x), (f)(x), ({f})(x)
And {c}.m is invalid at all, while c.m, (c).m, ({c}).m are quite valid.

Is it a parser bug, or manual should be fixed like this "{expr} means
{expr}; (note that sequence of exprs separated by ; evaluates to the last
expr)" ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /mailman/pipermail/devel-en/attachments/20070320/6a21b97f/attachment.html