[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)
   Sender: owner-mcp-dev@research.att.com
   Precedence: bulk
   Content-Type: text
   Content-Length: 917

   > 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.