"Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jon Stevens wrote:
> >
> > on 12/12/2000 1:36 PM, "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Why? I see no need for the "(" be together with the directive name.
> > > I see no need for such rigid grammar, I do not see the current grammar to
> > > be ambiguous or anything else. Why does this smplify explaining the
> > > directives?
> > >
> > > Jose Alberto
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > #foo (
> > #foo (
> > #foo(
> >
> > should all work.
>
> The do all work. We are talking about documentation...
>
> For the documentation, which was the original post of this thread, a
> single consistant style might be nice and easier to read.
I agree with you, but there should be a note saying that variations
are in fact functional. :)
Daniel
