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

From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 11:01:20 PDT

• Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Previous message: Peter Flake: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Maybe in reply to: Clifford E. Cummings: "@* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Next in thread: Michael McNamara: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Reply: Michael McNamara: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Precedence: bulk

>I oppose this motion. Paul Graham and I both have parsers which will allow
>spaces and some people like to use them for clarity.
>
>Peter.

Umm, I think that Mac was proposing to make @(*) invalid, rather than
defining anything about tokens. That would leave @* as the only syntax,
presumably with spaces allowed between the two characters.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com

• Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Previous message: Peter Flake: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Maybe in reply to: Clifford E. Cummings: "@* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Next in thread: Michael McNamara: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Reply: Michael McNamara: "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.