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

From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 13:39:36 PDT

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

Precedence: bulk

>>It seems like a lot of work for a little piece of syntactic sugar!
>>
>>Paul
>
>This enhancement is way more than syntactic sugar!
>
>Regards - Cliff

I think Paul was referring to the ability to add parentheses as syntactic
sugar, not the @* itself.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com

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