On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Fox wrote:
: Ok, thanks. (The "followed by a colon" is just to explain the behavior,
: right? It's illegal to follow a code block with a colon, isn't it?)
I don't see why it should be illegal--it could be useful if the closure
has played continuation games of some sort to get backtracking.
In the normal case it's a no-op, since closures don't normally get
control back when backtracked over.
: After talking to Aaron yesterday, I was wondering if sub-rules are
: meant to backtrack at all.
:
: Does the following example backtrack into <foo>?
:
: rule foo { b+ }
: rule bar { a <foo> b }
Yes, it must. It's only rules embedded in closures that are exempt
by default, I think.
Larry
