[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
Nuke the comma.
From: Roger Crew <rfc@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:10:41 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2166.0)
> In fact, I think this is the only reasonable interpretation given the
> following verbiage at the beginning of 2.2.1:
> Each argument to a message is named by a keyword.
> The keyword consists of an identifier (a string matching
> the <ident> nonterminal), optionally followed by an asterisk;
> That is, the asterisk is part of the keyword, hence it is part of the
> argument name. bar and bar* are thus distinct keywords and therefore name
> different arguments.
I've just noticed that there's a comma in the 3rd line of the quoted passage
from 2.2.1. If one assumes the comma to be anything other than a typo, then
"optionally followed by an asterisk" becomes this weird-ass dangling clause.
Of course one could reason that the grammatical incorrectness of the comma
implies that it must be a typo and so my original interpretation holds.
I vote for quietly removing the comma.