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

From: Michael McNamara (mac@verisity.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 13:34:18 PDT

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

Precedence: bulk

Steven Sharp writes:
>
> >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
>

Actually, I was not proposinging anything; I was ascertaining whether
anyone would second Stu's motion to make @(*) invalid.

-mac

• Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Previous message: Steven Sharp: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• In reply to: Steven Sharp: "Re: @* and @(*) and @( * ) and (* ... *)"
• Next in thread: Steven Sharp: "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.