On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
> The other bug is a misplaced ? in the regex checking for integers.
> This makes the match non-greedy, so 10000.0 (for example) gets
> split up into 1000 (which matches the regex) and 0.0 (which matches
> as a float the next time around the loop). This means that code
> such as
>
> set N1, 10000.0
>
> gets converted to
>
> set N1, 1000, 0.0
>
> which quite rightly fails to assemble. Removing the ? appears to make
> everything work as intended.
Forget this, this is garbage - the ? doesn't mean what I thought it
meant. Correct patch to follow shortly.
Simon
