RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux

[Dave Kormann <davek@research.att.com>]

>> 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.

me too; the comma is just a fuction of me being typically commahappy.
if there are no objections, it goes out at the end of the day under
the "i'll always fix typos" rule.
				dk