On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
That looks completish to me. (At least I didn't think, "hey! where's
such and such?")
One thing that I noticed and had to look up was
though. Because ...
> The part which needs a bit of clarification right now, in my opinion, is
> character classes. From what I can gather, these are character classes:
> <[a-z] +<digit>>
> <+<alpha> -[aeiouAEIOU]>
I believe that Larry blessed Pm's idea to allow
which implies to me that assertions starting with one of "<[",
"<-" or "<+" should be treated as character classes. This doesn't
seem to play well with <-prop X>. Maybe it does though.
Also, I think that it's [a..z] now rather than [a-z] but I'm not
entirely sure. At least that's how PGE implements it.
> but I want to be sure. I'm also curious about whitespace. Is "<[" one
> token, or can I write "< [a-z] >" and have it be a character class?
I think you need to write "<["
Jonathan Scott Duff