On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:11:15PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:04:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : +The long dot form of the C<...> postfix is C<0. ...> rather than
> : +C<0. ....> because the long dot eats the first dot after the whitespace.
> : +It does not follow that you can write C<0....> because that would
> : +take the first three dots under the longest token rule. (The long dot
> : +does not count as a longer token because the longest-token rule only
> : +applies to the fixed prefix of any rule with variable components.)
>
> Yes, before anyone else points it out to me, that still doesn't quite
> make sense, insofar as the long-dot rule has to take precedence over
What's not making sense to me is why it's not
The long dot form of the C<...> postfix is C<0. ....> rather than
C<0. ...> because the long dot eats the first dot after the whitespace.
(ie swapped the 3 and 4 dots), given that the long dot eats the first dot,
and 3 eat 1 leaves 2, whereas 4 eat 1 leaves 3.
Nicholas Clark
