On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the
: A5-page.
Hmm, well, thanks--I went to fix it and I see Patrick beat me to
the fix. But in one of the updates, it says:
+[Update: Actually, that's now written C<< <+alpha+digit> >>, avoiding
+the mistaken impression entirely.]
And it occurs to me that we could probably allow <alpha+digit> there
since there's no ambiguity what <alpha means, and we're already claiming
the next character after the opening word to decide how to process the
rest of the text inside angles. Even if someone writes
<alpha + digit>
that would fail under the current policy of treating "+ digit" as rule,
since you can't start a rule with +.
Unfortunately, though,
<identchar - digit>
would be ambiguous, and/or wrong. Could allow whitespace there if we
picked an explicit "this is rule" character. Did we remove "this is
string"? If so, we could swipe the colon:
<after: --help>
Could put back "this is string" with explicit quotes:
<after '--help'>
but that doesn't save much over
<after('--help')>
which is partly why we removed "this is string" in the first place.
Larry
