Depends how you define "syntax can be expressed by a prototype".
A "can be parsed without errors" criteria is not enough for me.
eof(); and eof; are (magically) different syntax for eof, and this difference can't be expressed with prototypes.
In the past the prototype symbol set was extended with *, + or _ in order to add prototypes to other built-ins.
This criteria isn't met here.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
In reply to Re^2: Why does eof have a prototype?
by LanX
in thread Why does eof have a prototype?
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |