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


which is partly why we removed "this is string" in the first place.


Reply via email to