Hudson Lacerda wrote:
It seems that you coded a line continuation similar to those of bash or C
That's what I did. Continuation gets reported (a T_CONTINUE event) and
the scanner stays in the same state.
[V:1] abcde \
[V:2] ABCDE \
[V:1] cdedc
[V:2] CDEDC
is equivalent to:
[V:1] abcde cdedc
On 23 Oct 2004, at 09:36, Remo D. wrote:
Hudson Lacerda wrote:
It seems that you coded a line continuation similar to those of bash
or C
That's what I did. Continuation gets reported (a T_CONTINUE event) and
the scanner stays in the same state.
That's correct. We have had long discussions on
Remo D. wrote:
Hudson Lacerda wrote:
It seems that you coded a line continuation similar to those of bash
or C
That's what I did. Continuation gets reported (a T_CONTINUE event) and
the scanner stays in the same state.
[V:1] abcde \
[V:2] ABCDE \
[V:1] cdedc
[V:2] CDEDC
is equivalent to:
[V:1]
Hello.
Remo D. wrote:
[...]
There is one thing that I'm not sure about. Should I support the 1.6
syntax for continution? Supporting both is not an easy task and I
would prefer not doing it.
[...]
Does anybody thinks that supporting al this variations on continuation
is absolutely crucial? I
