André Bargull wrote:
> There are the usual ASI problems. For example this is currently valid:
> ```
> a
> ~+ b
> ```
>
> It is parsed as:
> ```
> a;
> ~+ b;
> ``` 

The fix we entertained for 'is' and 'isnt' was restricted productions:

   AdditiveExpression [no LineTerminator here] '~+' MultiplicativeExpression

But we lose backward compatibility. Probably survivable, but who knows? 
See my recent post replying to Brandon Andrews.

Note this means ~+ cannot be a single lexeme in general. It has to be 
two, ~ and +, when used in the unlikely way: as unary prefix operators 
composed together.

/be

André Bargull wrote:
> There are the usual ASI problems.

The fix we entertained for 'is' and 'isnt' was restricted productions:

    AdditiveExpression [no LineTerminator here] '~+' MultiplicativeExpression

But we lose backward compatibility. Probably survivable, but who knows? 
See my recent post replying to Brandon Andrews.

Note this means ~+ cannot be a single lexeme in general. It has to be 
two, ~ and +, when used in the unlikely way: as unary prefix operators 
composed together.