> The meaning of "p1 & p2" would be "yields a pattern that matches both
> p1 and p2" versus the meaning of "p1 && p2" currently being "yields a
> pattern that matches a p1 followed by a p2" ?
No, p1 & p2 would be the new way to express p1 && p2.
> I'd generally say that deprecating (emit a warning message pointing to
> each usage) for a time period is a more cautious approach.
Easy 'nuf, though I'd be amazed if anyone is using p1 && p2 given it's
not documented and not intuitive!
Vern
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
