Original-Via: uk.ac.mhs; Wed, 29 Jan 92 16:14:52 GMT
X400-Received: by mta mhs-relay.ac.uk in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed;
Wed, 29 Jan 1992 16:13:01 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=sunet/ADMD= /C=se/; Relayed;
Wed, 29 Jan 1992 16:12:09 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=sunet/ADMD= /C=se/; Relayed;
Wed, 29 Jan 1992 13:35:47 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=sunet/ADMD= /C=se/; Relayed;
Wed, 29 Jan 1992 13:34:37 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=sunet/ADMD= /C=se/; Relayed;
Wed, 29 Jan 1992 13:34:37 +0000
X400-Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=sunet/ADMD= /C=se/;<[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: Re: "literate...
(lexical) SYNTAX ONLY
: | This is a 'literate' Haskell comment line.
: | > {- This is an illiterate (?? :-) Haskell comment line, but where does it end?
: | -}
: | > Still in a comment, or not??? Or is there a lexical error?
:
: The rule is clear. Only lines beginning with > are in the program,
But the text inside {- -} is not in the program either, so which takes
(lexical) precedence? I don't think that's so obvious.
I agree with Tony not to rush. (I otherwise propose that it should
be a lexical error to have a "non-'>'" line in a {- -} comment.)
/kent k
