Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)

From: Paul Graham (pgraham@cadence.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 07:37:05 PDT

• Next message: Stuart Sutherland: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Previous message: Dennis Marsa: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• In reply to: Dennis Marsa: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Next in thread: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Precedence: bulk

>
> Yes, but in your rule above, I think you also need to include
>
> '@' '(' '*)'
>
> as a 4th alternative.

Thanks for the bug report. I'll fix my parser!

Paul

• Next message: Stuart Sutherland: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Previous message: Dennis Marsa: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• In reply to: Dennis Marsa: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Next in thread: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:55:36 PDT and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.